Originally posted by BadSpock

Bioware is no stranger to controversy.

Releasing a game with a fake ending... taking all this flak for it... on purpose?

Would go down in history as the coolest shit ever.

But then I look at TOR and that spark of hope kind of dies a bit...

But come on, 95% of ME3 was awesome, absolutely amazing, no WAY Bioware would simply "run out" and do a shitty rush job at the ending.

It's a set up.

It HAS to be...

I think they ran out of time and had to rush the ending. SWTOR wasn't as huge as EA had hoped and to make the quarter look more positive EA pushed for a march release instead of waiting. So I do not see one big conspiracy about it being preplanned.

Originally posted by eddieg50

Originally posted by gestalt11

Originally posted by eddieg50

Good, I loved the ending of me3, hey life is not disney land

Life is internally consistent.  ME3's endings are not even close.

 

This isn't about not having a happy ending and going to disneyland.  Its that fact that there are numerous glaring plotholes and inconsistencies. 

 

The "fans are upset because there is no happey ending" meme is this discussions version of using an ad hominen to counter a valid argument.

  Life is anything but consistent, if it was we would all have perfect lives. You could be living a great life and walk out to the street and get run over...

I just want to point out that your example is perfectly consistent. If it was inconsistent you would step outside and get run over while there are no vehicles in a 20 mile radius. Consistency is defined on a macroscopic scale. In a microscopic view, there is no consistency.

Originally posted by Kaisen_Dexx

By demanding an ending where Shephard lives does undermine artistic integrity, and pushes back the industry's efforts as a whole, imo.

You realize that one of the endings showed Shepard alive on Earth. So your entire argument is basically null and void.

Originally posted by BadSpock

The problem is that ME3 was 95% awesome and amazing.

But the last 10 minutes were just... absolutely terrible.

There is no subjective or opinion on it either.

It is factual that compared the rest of the game, to the rest of the SERIES, the last 10 minutes of ME3 didn't make any god damn sense. At all.

It's like they handed the development to another studio who had never played the previous games or played a minute of ME3.

It really is that bad.

People aren't just angry because it wasn't a "happy" ending, people are angry because it was literally that absolutely ridiculously without a doubt TERRIBLE.

 

This.

Well said though I'd like a happy ending. Why not give people choices rather than only one: Destroy the known galaxy and everyone in it and die. That, quite simply, sucks.

And life isn't consistent. Our lives are filled with anxiety and worry and a lot more bad stuff which is why I play games in the first place. I want something different from what I experience every day of my life. Bioware gave me Shepard and allowed her to save the galaxy twice before ME3. She's heroic and bold. Bioware made us love our Shepards AND the people she met in her journey. To think that anyone would be satisfied with an ending that basically nullifies everything she was is a slap in the face to all of us who, by extension, became Shepard. There should be an option for life or death, destruction or salvation.

Originally posted by Connmacart

Originally posted by Kaisen_Dexx

By demanding an ending where Shephard lives does undermine artistic integrity, and pushes back the industry's efforts as a whole, imo.

You realize that one of the endings showed Shepard alive on Earth. So your entire argument is basically null and void.

I may have used a poor theme choice there, but is the fact that shephard lives considered a happy ending? In all the endings there is total destruction of the mass relays and essentially the earth is doomed. Geez having to watch that sounds like a worse ending than shephard dieing.

I have also corrected my post with a valid ending theme.

ME3. What happens when a devloper's head gets so far up their own ass, they cease to exist.

After watching so many excellent game companies die under the heel of EA, and their last two gaming fiascos, I see little point in refering to Bioware as anything but EA from now on.

Originally posted by BigDave7481

 

I'm going to chime in here.  First off I've never played ME but this whole controversy over ME3 endings has peaked my interest, atleast in the story.  So, take what I say very loosely.  

 

From what I've read/watched from ME3 and it's endings is that Bioware were shooting for the Indoctrination theory.  You were given two bad endings and one happy ending (not really happy).  First the two bad endings ended with Shepard dieing and Reapers continue on or Shepard becoming synthesized witch neither are good.  Or you could choose the "happy ending" where Shepard is seen breathing at the end BUT for him to survive and remove the Reaper threat he had to make a "bad" decision in killing off all synthetic life.  This is actually an old plot line from many past stories.  Do you sacrifice few to save many?  It also asks the moral question of whether synthetic life (machines) are just as important as human life (organic).  Are they even considered living?  There was a line in the Shepard Indoctrination video where someone who said that there were hard decisions in the future that they weren't equiped to make and I think this directly applies to this choice.

 

But here is the problem.  Gamers are not used to this level of depth in games.  Games usually have less attention spent on story line and more work put into the game itself.  The depth of the endings (Indoctrination theory) is the kind of stuff you would expect to see in a novel, film (think Inception) or Lore outside the game itself.

 

Like I said though, take my opinion loosely cause I've played none of the games.

Personally I think the whole indoctrination theory is a load of old wank. Its people looking for depth and meaning in a plot that didn't have any. Fans have done this with books and films forever. Should we also run to the old literay conspiracy theory that Sheppard is a Christ figure?

My opinion, Bioware got so caught up in the idea of an EPIC last hurrah, that they forgot players aren't here for the show, they are here to be a part of a favored game world.

So I have had ME1, ME2 CE, and recently ME3 CE. I played through quite a bit of ME1, started playing ME3 when I got it.

One thing I don't see mentioned anywhere is that Mass Effect is a game reboot of the tv series called Babylon 5.

Why is that relevant?

Because Babylon 5, even in the rushed 4th season, had a satisfactory and believable conclusion. It fucking won awards left and right. Mass Effect chose to rip off everything from Babylon 5 but the fucking ending? Bullshit. I'm going to guess that this was where the artistic direction decided to stray from what had already been laid out in Babylon 5, and they failed abysmally at it.

Originally posted by Tardcore

Originally posted by BigDave7481

 

I'm going to chime in here.  First off I've never played ME but this whole controversy over ME3 endings has peaked my interest, atleast in the story.  So, take what I say very loosely.  

 

From what I've read/watched from ME3 and it's endings is that Bioware were shooting for the Indoctrination theory.  You were given two bad endings and one happy ending (not really happy).  First the two bad endings ended with Shepard dieing and Reapers continue on or Shepard becoming synthesized witch neither are good.  Or you could choose the "happy ending" where Shepard is seen breathing at the end BUT for him to survive and remove the Reaper threat he had to make a "bad" decision in killing off all synthetic life.  This is actually an old plot line from many past stories.  Do you sacrifice few to save many?  It also asks the moral question of whether synthetic life (machines) are just as important as human life (organic).  Are they even considered living?  There was a line in the Shepard Indoctrination video where someone who said that there were hard decisions in the future that they weren't equiped to make and I think this directly applies to this choice.

 

But here is the problem.  Gamers are not used to this level of depth in games.  Games usually have less attention spent on story line and more work put into the game itself.  The depth of the endings (Indoctrination theory) is the kind of stuff you would expect to see in a novel, film (think Inception) or Lore outside the game itself.

 

Like I said though, take my opinion loosely cause I've played none of the games.

Personally I think the whole indoctrination theory is a load of old wank. Its people looking for depth and meaning in a plot that didn't have any. Fans have done this with books and films forever. Should we also run to the old literay conspiracy theory that Sheppard is a Christ figure?

My opinion, Bioware got so caught up in the idea of an EPIC last hurrah, that they forgot players aren't here for the show, they are here to be a part of a favored game world.

Exactly, I agree.  Bioware go caught up in making an epic ending and forgot that they were making a FPS game and not a movie or  book.  However, I still believe they were going for the Indoctrination theory.  Hopefully the DLC will prove or disprove that.

Seriously what do you people expect?

EA flat out stated last year they bought bioware for its nameand reputation only and were going to outsource all the development and milk as much profit out of it as they could.

I mean its not a secret this is what EA has always done, do you really think this time it is going to be different?

Originally posted by BigDave7481

 

Exactly, I agree.  Bioware go caught up in making an epic ending and forgot that they were making a FPS game and not a movie or  book.  However, I still believe they were going for the Indoctrination theory.  Hopefully the DLC will prove or disprove that.

Not true.

Bioware has, in the past, had some of the most talented writers ever to grace the role playing game genre. They have produced some of the finest RPGs ever made with STORY being what mattered most. In the case of the Mass Effect series, the writing is stellar, the story important, the lore integral and important...except for the last 1/2 hour of the last game. Then they take all the love, care and attention that was showered on the series from the get-go and flush it down the proverbial crapper. They were rushed to get something out the door and not given the time to bring the game to the conclusion that I believe ME deserves as the pinnacle of RPGs from Bioware.

They are focused on the multiplayer stuff, sure, but story has ALWAYS been the hallmark of Bioware until Dragon Age 2 and now Mass Effect 3. Realizing that both of those were developed under the wings of EA gives you a big clue as to what happened to ME3.

The journey was so epic, so grand, so filled with desperation, friendship, terror, love and heroics that the ending deserved to measure up to the story that made all of us love Shepard and her crew.

Suzie, have you seen this video on EA/BioWare? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6TmTv6deTI&feature=youtu.be

I absolutely adore this guy. He's only made three videos so far (and I linked the other two in another post), but he has a really wonderful, measured, carefully considered perspective. The video is 17 minutes long, and basically looks at the finances governing megapublishers and the inherent conflicts of interest between big publishers and smaller game studios. We've all seen videos like that before (read: where one guy is ranting that "EA is evil"), but that isn't the tack taken here. He editorializes a bit, but supports his conclusions. It's almost novel for YouTube. ;)

Originally posted by eddieg50

Originally posted by gestalt11

Originally posted by eddieg50

Good, I loved the ending of me3, hey life is not disney land

Life is internally consistent.  ME3's endings are not even close.

 

This isn't about not having a happy ending and going to disneyland.  Its that fact that there are numerous glaring plotholes and inconsistencies. 

 

The "fans are upset because there is no happey ending" meme is this discussions version of using an ad hominen to counter a valid argument.

  Life is anything but consistent, if it was we would all have perfect lives. You could be living a great life and walk out to the street and get run over.  I guess I could sit down and thoroughly analyze me3 if I wanted to but why? I am happy that bioware did away with the annoying mini games, the annoying vehicles, etc the story line is not quite as good as me2 but only cause in me2 we met new characters and the story line was all about fleshing out their lives, in me3 it was a continuation of that and the final chapter , that being said the story line was still very good.   The ending with the kid was a little jarring but you have to remember the kid appeared throughout me3 and was a mystery.  Al in all most people hated on me3 because they think Shepard dies,(the Disney land effect)  There  are also a vocal minority who took apart the whole story and are picking out flaws. I just enjoyed the game for what it was a very emotional, raw, visceral story.

Since when is consistency good stuff happening? 

Internal consistency is stuff like a science experiment giving different people the same result.  Thus being consistent with itself.  Or when two people jump of the same bridge and both die.  That is consistent.  It certainly isn't nice or happy or a wonderful thing.

Again you are wrapped up in happiness which is not what this is about at all.  Even going so far is to take a word that is not at all related to it and projecting another meaning on it. 

Kid is not jarring to me.  The kid is a cliche I have seen too many times and a nice neat plot device to wrap things up neatly but not.  He wasn't mysterious at all.  As soon I heard about it  I groaned to myself and said "oh no they didn't di they?"

Making new endings costs money.

Think about it this way, a Pixar film costs about $10M to make including voice acting.  The ending to Mass Effect 3 in sum total is about 15 minutes long, so you are looking at a cost of about $1.3M per ending.  You might even be able to argue down that it is 750k per ending... but it is still quite expensive all together.

If they were to make totally new endings they would HAVE to charge for it because it costs so much to make.  This of course would piss off fans to no end.

There was really no winning solution here for Bioware.  Just adjusting and explaining the existing ending was the only real way to stay profitable and make most of their fans happy.

A person is allowed to hate an ending to a story.  I'm sure that Twilight has as many haters as fans filled with people who hate and love the story.  Often my girlfriend (who loves reading fantasy) will yell at her book "STOP MAKING BAD DECISIONS."

This just in: No further Bioware purchases by Rednecksith planned.

But seriously, they are dead to me. They took a franchise which had the potential to become one of the greatest sci-fi IP's of all time and completely and utterly destroyed it. Hell, it took Lucas 3 movies and a bunch of alterations to his original work, as well as a TV show to do it. Bioware nullified everything Mass Effect in about 10 minutes, which in retrospect is a pretty impressive feat.

Westwood Studios, Bullfrog, Origin Systems, Maxis, Pandemic, and now Bioware... God damn you EA.

Originally posted by Jenuviel

Suzie, have you seen this video on EA/BioWare? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6TmTv6deTI&feature=youtu.be

I absolutely adore this guy. He's only made three videos so far (and I linked the other two in another post), but he has a really wonderful, measured, carefully considered perspective. The video is 17 minutes long, and basically looks at the finances governing megapublishers and the inherent conflicts of interest between big publishers and smaller game studios. We've all seen videos like that before (read: where one guy is ranting that "EA is evil"), but that isn't the tack taken here. He editorializes a bit, but supports his conclusions. It's almost novel for YouTube. ;)

I hadn't but I will check it out tomorrow. I can't bring myself to fire up ME 1, 2 or 3. Sheesh. Gotta do something.

Holding. The. Line.

It's understandable why some people cling to the IT so much. It's the perfect rationale for excusing away everything that doesn't make any sense in the ending under the nebulous idea of indoctrination. They can then simply go, "See? NONE OF THAT HAPPENED! Yay!"

Personally, I really do doubt it's true. Mostly because Shep shows no signs of it whatsoever. And outside the dreams, most of what is used as proof comes from the last 10 minutes of pure nonsense.

I think these epilogue slides will mostly be about what happens to the other races and all the people left stranded. That'll make some happy, though I'd wager more won't be.

But hey, SPECULATION FOR EVERYBODY!! is what they wanted. So if believing firmly in the IT makes the game better for you, more power to you! I'll probably not be interested in any further BioWare games.

Originally posted by Suzie_Ford

 

Not true.

Bioware has, in the past, had some of the most talented writers ever to grace the role playing game genre. They have produced some of the finest RPGs ever made with STORY being what mattered most. In the case of the Mass Effect series, the writing is stellar, the story important, the lore integral and important...except for the last 1/2 hour of the last game. Then they take all the love, care and attention that was showered on the series from the get-go and flush it down the proverbial crapper. They were rushed to get something out the door and not given the time to bring the game to the conclusion that I believe ME deserves as the pinnacle of RPGs from Bioware.

They are focused on the multiplayer stuff, sure, but story has ALWAYS been the hallmark of Bioware until Dragon Age 2 and now Mass Effect 3. Realizing that both of those were developed under the wings of EA gives you a big clue as to what happened to ME3.

The journey was so epic, so grand, so filled with desperation, friendship, terror, love and heroics that the ending deserved to measure up to the story that made all of us love Shepard and her crew.

The thing about what you guys keep saying that doesn't make sense is that even if they were rushed, how is the lore crapped on? I've asked already with no reply. Where was the lore broken? I've played one and two but not three. Even considering I really don't care about a spoiler, with so much hoopla I would rather know what the deal is.

Why would "rushed" force "stellar" writing, to become a break in canon? It doesn't make sense. I can see it causing a rushed ending that doesn't plug all holes, but not one that "breaks" the story. ANd if the writing was so stellar (all the way to the last 1/2 hour of 3), what sense does it make for it to just stop and they decide; hey!, none of this matters, lets just end it? It doesn't add up.

So i was playing through Mass Effect 1 doing a Renegade run when i came across this codex entry:

Primary Codex from Mass Effect 1:

Faster-than-light drives use element zero cores to reduce the mass of a ship, allowing higher rates of acceleration. This effectively raises the speed of light within the mass effect field, allowing high speed travel with negligible relativistic time dilation¹ effects.

Starships still require conventional thrusters (chemical rockets, commercial fusion torch, economy ion engine, or military antiproton drive) in addition to the FTL drive core. With only a core, a ship has no motive power.

The amount of element zero and power required for a drive increases exponentially to the mass being moved and the degree it is being lightened. Very massive ships or very high speeds are prohibitively expensive.

If the field collapses while the ship is moving at faster-than-light speeds, the effects are catastrophic. The ship is snapped back to sublight velocity, the enormous excess energy shed in the form of lethal Cherenkov radiation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't that scene where the normady is traveling through a mass relay showing a field collapse, and if so, why isn't the entire crew dead. According to the Mass Effect 1 Codex, getting snapped out of FTL would bathe you in lethal Cherenkov radiation. I'm surpised i haven't seen this getting pointed out anywhere.