EPTMass Effect 3 - Page 120
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On March 22 2012 00:02 Lemonerer wrote: Oh and BTW I really hope this pressure is not too much and EA will not just decide to end the Mass Effect universe forever (Or at least not try new stories, only multiplayer and side missions). That would suck bad. As long as there is money to be made we will always see sequels. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
On March 21 2012 23:42 Tobberoth wrote: It's ridiculous to bring up that it's deus ex machina. Of course it is, what did you expect? The very first mission after the intro explains that a mystical weapon which can destroy the reapers has been uncovered. Boom, deus ex machina, more or less the definition of it, now we already know how we will beat the reapers. How the crucible solves the problem isn't important, the fact that the crucible exists has already doomed the series to a deus ex machina ending... which isn't surprising because there was no other way to do it, there was no way to beat the reapers conventionally and if shepard somehow managed to do that, everyone would hate the ending anyway since it would make no sense that the reapers are unbeatable yet shepard beats them anyway. I am 100% sure that if the crucible was simply a weapon that destroyed the reapers, and the ending cutscene was suitably epic, few to no people would hate the ending because it gives closure. The whole game builds up to the crucible being a weapon, it's the whole aim, why would it be disappointing. No one ever said the reapers were unbeatable. The trilogy is about trying to beat the reapers. I chose red because it's the only one that made any kind of sense to me. I just don't see how you are comfortable with just saying 'oh yeah the reapers have advanced technology I can buy this'. I mean...good for you, but I can't do it. I don't understand. I don't understand anything the Child says because it doesn't make sense; they have a weapon that can destroy all synthetic life but instead of using it periodically there's a cycle in place where all organic life is wiped out by synthetics whenever there's a danger of organics making synthetics that would destroy them. Have I phrased that unfairly? Read it over to yourself. It's batshit crazy to me and the indoctrination theory (which imo has so much evidence that it's borderline irrefutable) is the only way I can bend it round to be plausible. Perhaps people might claim that I'm reading too much into this or something but frankly I think the ending and closure of a story that many many people have invested time, thought and emotion into is important. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
On March 22 2012 00:37 Andr3 wrote: As much as I would like a better explanation of the ending, it feels weird that BW has to "fix" it. For good or for ill we should just accept it, else we can start complaining about other works as well. Would be funny if every other game would have a DLC with a different ending, or a movie or a book. But MAN do I agree with this. The finished product is what it is and I would feel all wrong if they tried to fix it with DLC. ALL wrong. The fact that Bioware is responding to people's criticism with 'oh you don't like it? Ok maybe we'll change it' is extremely weird to me. | ||
|
Lemonerer
Israel135 Posts
On March 22 2012 00:46 ZAiNs wrote: As long as there is money to be made we will always see sequels. Yeah, what I mean is that theres a huge difference between continuing the story and the lore of the awesome ME universe or going "World of Mass Effect" on us. | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On March 22 2012 00:53 The KY wrote: But MAN do I agree with this. The finished product is what it is and I would feel all wrong if they tried to fix it with DLC. ALL wrong. The fact that Bioware is responding to people's criticism with 'oh you don't like it? Ok maybe we'll change it' is extremely weird to me. They promised a product they didn't deliver. Demanding a different ending is the least we should be doing, and as responsible consumers we have every right to. They have the right to choose not to of course, but that would just mean that many people wouldn't buy from them in future. | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On March 22 2012 00:02 Lemonerer wrote: I think many people do not even bother understanding the endings. The way I see it: Blue (control) ending: Shepard gives up his phisycal body while joining his mind with the one of the Reapers. After all the sacrifices and fights Shepard eventually became the Reapers leader, living forever as the new catalyst. Red (destroy) ending: Shepard decides to destroy the Reapers once and for all, you have two possible outcomes of this: Either the shockwave that destroys the reapers is so strong that it wipes everything in its path (Big Ben) destroying probably most of the galaxy with it. This is the ''Bad" ending. (End of the galaxy) The second outcome is that the explosion is some kind of an anti AI wave. destroying all the AI in the galaxy (includes not only the Reapers but also the Geth and probably EDI), this ending ensures that there will be no more Reapers ever but comes at the cost of dear friends and allies. Also in this ending Shepard might even survive! (blue babys) Green (Synthetic) ending: Shepard sacrifices himself,using the power of the crucible to merge all organic life with synthetic. This allows everyone that Shepard ever cared about to survive and ends the war, but is the cost too high? (Does these units still have a soul?) Every ending you get will also destroy the relays, rebuilding will take ages... (Did you really think that the greatest war in the history of the universe will just end with no long term affects? Kinda rediculus IMO) Those endings are really different from each other if you look at them like that. These are good and epic ways to end the story of Commander Shepard. I do believe that if BW would introduce these ideas of possible outcomes slowly during the game and not in the last five minutes people would accept them much easier, maybe thats their mistake. Oh and about plot holes, you cannot complain about the many plot holes in the ending while ignoring the rest of the game. There are so many plot holes since the beggining of the trilogy. It is a trend of lazy writing in video games that you can see all over Mass Effect. The plot holes are not somthing to make theories about, they are just plot holes. I think this is what BW truly meant with the story, everything that they will change is just surrendering to the pressure of the community. Oh and BTW I really hope this pressure is not too much and EA will not just decide to end the Mass Effect universe forever (Or at least not try new stories, only multiplayer and side missions). That would suck bad. Your explanations of the endings miss out what I feel are the main ideas behind the endings. The reason for the Reapers is to stop civilisations becoming advanced enough to create AI that eventually will revolt against their creators and lead to the end of organic life in the Galaxy (such as seen with the Quarians and the Geth). The Red ending is that the Reapers and the Geth are destroyed, solving the problem for now, but basically saying that eventually new AI's will be created, and next time there will be no Reapers to come along and make sure that organic life continues. The Blue ending is that Shepard takes control of the Reapers because the current catalyst believes that he cannot handle the situation now because it never foresaw a way that a current generation life form could be advanced enough to reach the citadel and defeat (multiple) reapers. That this is due to accumulated knowledge which has been passed down through many extinctions in the past by such people with foresight (like Liara) to make time capsules with their current state of technology, is completely unknown to the Catalyst. In this ending the Geth and organic life forms will go on living together for as long as Shepard (the new catalyst) deems that the non-organic life forms don't possess a threat to organic life, but that she would still have the kill switch. Obviously Shepard is in a way sacrificed during this process, but on the other hand she kind of gets to live forever. The green ending is my least favorite, because all organic and non-organic life is fused, thus actually killing organic life in the galaxy so that it is no longer inevitable for non organic life forms to wipe out their creators and all other organic life. Its kind of cutting off your nose to save your face. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On March 22 2012 00:51 The KY wrote: I am 100% sure that if the crucible was simply a weapon that destroyed the reapers, and the ending cutscene was suitably epic, few to no people would hate the ending because it gives closure. The whole game builds up to the crucible being a weapon, it's the whole aim, why would it be disappointing. No one ever said the reapers were unbeatable. The trilogy is about trying to beat the reapers. I chose red because it's the only one that made any kind of sense to me. I just don't see how you are comfortable with just saying 'oh yeah the reapers have advanced technology I can buy this'. I mean...good for you, but I can't do it. I don't understand. I don't understand anything the Child says because it doesn't make sense; they have a weapon that can destroy all synthetic life but instead of using it periodically there's a cycle in place where all organic life is wiped out by synthetics whenever there's a danger of organics making synthetics that would destroy them. Have I phrased that unfairly? Read it over to yourself. It's batshit crazy to me and the indoctrination theory (which imo has so much evidence that it's borderline irrefutable) is the only way I can bend it round to be plausible. Perhaps people might claim that I'm reading too much into this or something but frankly I think the ending and closure of a story that many many people have invested time, thought and emotion into is important. It changes nothing if the crucible simply destroys the reapers, it's still deus ex machina. There's no way to solve the story with what's already in it (because it's said over and over in every game that the reapers are FAR superior to anything else and it takes the whole damn fleet to kill one of them), so a godsent solution simply presents itself: the crucible. If it was simply a weapon which destroyed them, I would be extremely disappointed because that's just ridiculously simple. Oh yeah, no one understands how it works or where it comes from, but yeah, it kills the reapers. Yay. It would be way more of a deus ex ending than what we got where there's actually some depth to what the crucible does. And the reason why they didn't simply use the weapon to kill all synthetics is because it would obviously kill the reapers as well and then their goal wouldn't be met the next cycle. I'm not even arguing that it's a perfect ending, I'm just saying the ending is fine if you stop expecting everything in the mass effect 3 universe to be explained on a platter, and start using your own imagination a bit. Yeah, some deeper explanations would be sweet, longer and more different endings would be nice, a bit more closure wouldn't hurt... but none of those things make the ending as bad as everyone is making it out to be, and it most certainly doesn't "ruin in the game". | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On March 22 2012 00:55 Iyerbeth wrote: They promised a product they didn't deliver. Demanding a different ending is the least we should be doing, and as responsible consumers we have every right to. They have the right to choose not to of course, but that would just mean that many people wouldn't buy from them in future. If you watch a movie and dislike the ending, do you contact the director and demand he direct a new ending which conforms to what you want? No? Does anyone do this? Has it ever happened? Then why should you be able to do it here? | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On March 22 2012 01:04 Tobberoth wrote: If you watch a movie and dislike the ending, do you contact the director and demand he direct a new ending which conforms to what you want? No? Does anyone do this? Has it ever happened? Then why should you be able to do it here? First it has nothing to do with what I want, it's about integrity, both to the fans and the story. Yes it has happened, with both an ME book that didn't conform to lore and in the Fallout series. Further, they specifically made claims, knowing what was about to be shipped, that do not conform with the product that was delivered, and there are so many cases of products being sold with false advertising that I shouldn't have to go in to detail on that. Finally, say I bought the original Star Wars trilogy and the last 30 minutes of the final film was just some random B movie in a language I couldn't recognise that was nothing to do with the actual story in terms of characters, plot, or even core principals of the universe, then yeah, I'd demand a new ending. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On March 22 2012 01:04 Tobberoth wrote: If you watch a movie and dislike the ending, do you contact the director and demand he direct a new ending which conforms to what you want? No? Does anyone do this? Has it ever happened? Then why should you be able to do it here? I never like this comparison. Do you have huge internet forums where viewers discuss movies and even interact with developers? Do movies commonly ask for feedback, and sometimes even include popular demands in the finished product or during the development cycle? You obviously can't compare the level of interaction between developers and the public in those two situations. Is it fine to complain that Bnet doesn't offer some features it probally should have? Is it fine to complain that a developer doesn't include a feature he promised before? That a hero/class/race is boring/overpowered/weak/badly designed/etc? Is it fine to ask for extra features you would like to see in a patch? What exactly can you ask of the developers and what can't you ask? A diferent ending is probally something that never happened before, not to this scale, and some people may be taking it a little to serious, but don't say you can never ask for changes in a game just because movies don't change after release, that's a bad argument. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On March 22 2012 01:13 Iyerbeth wrote: First it has nothing to do with what I want, it's about integrity, both to the fans and the story. Yes it has happened, with both an ME book that didn't conform to lore and in the Fallout series. Further, they specifically made claims, knowing what was about to be shipped, that do not conform with the product that was delivered, and there are so many cases of products being sold with false advertising that I shouldn't have to go in to detail on that. Finally, say I bought the original Star Wars trilogy and the last 30 minutes of the final film was just some random B movie in a language I couldn't recognise that was nothing to do with the actual story in terms of characters, plot, or even core principals of the universe, then yeah, I'd demand a new ending. Yeah, you'd demand a new ending and everyone would laugh at you because it's preposterous to think that YOU decide the ending and not the creators and innovators of the movie. It's an artform, the artist is responsible for the form. It's perfectly fine to hate an ending to a movie and think it could be done better. It's also fine to let the artist know he fucked up because you thought of a better ending. None of that means the art should be changed. I mean... I think Mona Lisa is too pale, but it would be pretty damn ridiculous for me to demand it to be repainted, now wouldn't it? | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On March 22 2012 01:16 Tobberoth wrote: Yeah, you'd demand a new ending and everyone would laugh at you because it's preposterous to think that YOU decide the ending and not the creators and innovators of the movie. It's an artform, the artist is responsible for the form. It's perfectly fine to hate an ending to a movie and think it could be done better. It's also fine to let the artist know he fucked up because you thought of a better ending. None of that means the art should be changed. I mean... I think Mona Lisa is too pale, but it would be pretty damn ridiculous for me to demand it to be repainted, now wouldn't it? If you were specifically told the she was black before you bought it, then yeah. It's called being a paying consumer. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On March 22 2012 01:15 SKC wrote: I never like this comparison. Do you have huge internet forums where viewers discuss movies and even interact with developers? Do movies commonly ask for feedback, and sometimes even include popular demands in the finished product or during the development cycle? You obviously can't compare the level of interaction between developers and the public in those two situations. Is it fine to complain that Bnet doesn't offer some features it probally should have? Is it fine to complain that a developer doesn't include a feature he promised before? That a hero/class/race is boring/overpowered/weak/badly designed/etc? Is it fine to ask for extra features you would like to see in a patch? What exactly can you ask of the developers and what can't you ask? A diferent ending is probally something that never happened before, not to this scale, and some people may be taking it a little to serious, but don't say you can never ask for changes in a game just because movies don't change after release, that's a bad argument. You simply need to realize what is story and what isn't. I want a button in SC2 which shows some more stats... that's not infringing on their vision of the SC2 universe and story, it's just functionality I think would be sweet. Telling them that Kerrigan should have died at the end and that I demand they fix it because I prefer an end where Kerrigan dies, now that's trying to change the story, which is not the same thing at all. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On March 22 2012 01:19 Iyerbeth wrote: If you were specifically told the she was black before you bought it, then yeah. It's called being a paying consumer. BioWare never said they wouldn't have an ending where where organics and synthetics are fused. They said the game would be a conclusion, and it sure was. | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On March 22 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: BioWare never said they wouldn't have an ending where where organics and synthetics are fused. They said the game would be a conclusion, and it sure was. My favourite lie was: Interview with Casey Hudson (Director) http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2 Hudson: That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.” + Show Spoiler [Image of Ending] + ![[image loading]](http://threwmycontroller.com/subs/img/me3ending.png) Some explicit lies: + Show Spoiler + Official Mass Effect Website http://masseffect.com/about/story/ “Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.” Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer) http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/02/28/mass-effect-3-mac-walters/ “[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.” Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer) http://business.financialpost.com/2012/03/05/qa-mass-effect-3s-mac-walters-on-how-the-game-tries-to-reach-all-audiences/ “I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are optimal for different people “ Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) http://www.computerandvideogames.com/334598/interviews/mass-effect-3-weve-brought-back-a-lot-of-what-was-missing-in-me2/ “And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as much as we are anyway.” Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) http://www.360magazine.co.uk/interview/mass-effect-3-has-many-different-endings/ “There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say any more than that…” Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-02-bioware-mass-effect-3-ending-will-make-some-people-angry “Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the architect of what happens." “You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people.” “Because a lot of these plot threads are concluding and because it's being brought to a finale, since you were a part of architecting how they got to how they were, you will definitely sense how they close was because of the decisions you made and because of the decisions you didn't make” Interview with Casey Hudson (Director) http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/04/28/casey-hudson-interview-mass-effect-3.aspx “For people who are invested in these characters and the back-story of the universe and everything, all of these things come to a resolution in Mass Effect 3. And they are resolved in a way that's very different based on what you would do in those situations.” Interview with Casey Hudson (Director) http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/02/casey-hudson-bioware-co-created-mass-effect-3-with-the-sometimes-cranky-fans-interview/ “Fans want to make sure that they see things resolved, they want to get some closure, a great ending. I think they’re going to get that.” “Mass Effect 3 is all about answering all the biggest questions in the lore, learning about the mysteries and the Protheans and the Reapers, being able to decide for yourself how all of these things come to an end.” Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?” Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.” Interview with Casey Hudson (Director) http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2 Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] “Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?” Hudson: “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.” “We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player decide what your story is.” EDIT: Couple more interesting quotes I found, enjoy......or not. Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1027650/mass_effect_3_reapers_can_win_bioware.html Mass Effect 3 will shake up the player's moral choices more than ever before, even going so far as allowing the Reapers to win the battle for Earth, according to BioWare's community representative Mike Gamble. In an inteview with NowGamer at Gamescom, we asked if BioWare was taking risks with Mass Effect 3's plot, including a negative ending in which the Reapers win. Gamble simply said, "Yes". We asked him again to confirm what he had just said and he said, "Yes". Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1229983/mass_effect_3_developer_interview_shepard_coop_story_details.html "Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a totally different way of playing" Casey Hudson (Director) http://gamescatalyst.com/2012/03/casey-hudson-kinect-the-future-of-interactive-stories/ “The whole idea of Mass Effect3 is resolving all of the biggest questions, about the Protheons and the Reapers, and being in the driver's seat to end the galaxy and all of these big plot lines, to decide what civilizations are going to live or die: All of these things are answered in Mass Effect 3.” Casey Hudson (Director) http://www.computerandvideogames.com/336331/interviews/mass-effect-3-we-cant-go-on-holiday-our-dlc-is-really-good/?page=2 “There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things - it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who plays it.” | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
On March 22 2012 01:00 Tobberoth wrote: It changes nothing if the crucible simply destroys the reapers, it's still deus ex machina. There's no way to solve the story with what's already in it (because it's said over and over in every game that the reapers are FAR superior to anything else and it takes the whole damn fleet to kill one of them), so a godsent solution simply presents itself: the crucible. If it was simply a weapon which destroyed them, I would be extremely disappointed because that's just ridiculously simple. Oh yeah, no one understands how it works or where it comes from, but yeah, it kills the reapers. Yay. It would be way more of a deus ex ending than what we got where there's actually some depth to what the crucible does. And the reason why they didn't simply use the weapon to kill all synthetics is because it would obviously kill the reapers as well and then their goal wouldn't be met the next cycle. I'm not even arguing that it's a perfect ending, I'm just saying the ending is fine if you stop expecting everything in the mass effect 3 universe to be explained on a platter, and start using your own imagination a bit. Yeah, some deeper explanations would be sweet, longer and more different endings would be nice, a bit more closure wouldn't hurt... but none of those things make the ending as bad as everyone is making it out to be, and it most certainly doesn't "ruin in the game". I won't argue the rest because I'd just be repeating myself but bolded; what? I said use the weapon periodically. So instead of the totally batshit insane way they use synthetics to kill organics to stop organics making synthetics that would kill organics, just kill the synthetics every so often. It's clearly well within their power. On March 22 2012 01:16 Tobberoth wrote: Yeah, you'd demand a new ending and everyone would laugh at you because it's preposterous to think that YOU decide the ending and not the creators and innovators of the movie. It's an artform, the artist is responsible for the form. It's perfectly fine to hate an ending to a movie and think it could be done better. It's also fine to let the artist know he fucked up because you thought of a better ending. None of that means the art should be changed. I mean... I think Mona Lisa is too pale, but it would be pretty damn ridiculous for me to demand it to be repainted, now wouldn't it? I agree broadly with this sentiment, I used the word product above but imo ME is more than a product and we are not simply consumers of that product. it's an interesting topic, and to quote from Penny Arcade 'I’ve always wondered what the conflux of digital goods, interactive storytelling, algorithmic content creation, and democratized funding mean for an idea like authorship. I think we’re beginning to find out.' Video games are a business but when a game like Mass Effect comes along it's more than something to consume it's something you put a bit of yourself into the same way as a book or a film. I personally am repulsed by the idea of lobbying the makers to change the ending because we don't feel like we've been given the product we paid for. | ||
|
Olsson
Sweden931 Posts
If the indoctrination theory is correct it means that everything was an hallucination from the point where shepard passed out til the last scene where you see him taking a breath. If it ends at this point with no follow up ending it means that you'll never know what actually happends which is really bad. If the indoctrination theory is wrong then it's even fucking worse, everything you done from ME 1 didn't even fucking matter what so ever and this might be the whole idea of the ending even though you fought it didn't pay off because of how destiny works or whatever. EDIT: Also I never understood why the reapers are doing what they did? They kill organics each 50,000 year to stop organics from creating synthetics that will kill them? Sup dawg I heard synthetics are going to kill you so we synthetics come each 50,000 year to stop synthetics from killing you! | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On March 22 2012 01:24 Iyerbeth wrote: My favourite lie was: Interview with Casey Hudson (Director) http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2 Hudson: That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.” + Show Spoiler [Image of Ending] + Some explicit lies: + Show Spoiler + Official Mass Effect Website http://masseffect.com/about/story/ “Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.” Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer) http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/02/28/mass-effect-3-mac-walters/ “[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.” Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer) http://business.financialpost.com/2012/03/05/qa-mass-effect-3s-mac-walters-on-how-the-game-tries-to-reach-all-audiences/ “I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are optimal for different people “ Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) http://www.computerandvideogames.com/334598/interviews/mass-effect-3-weve-brought-back-a-lot-of-what-was-missing-in-me2/ “And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as much as we are anyway.” Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) http://www.360magazine.co.uk/interview/mass-effect-3-has-many-different-endings/ “There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say any more than that…” Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-02-bioware-mass-effect-3-ending-will-make-some-people-angry “Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the architect of what happens." “You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people.” “Because a lot of these plot threads are concluding and because it's being brought to a finale, since you were a part of architecting how they got to how they were, you will definitely sense how they close was because of the decisions you made and because of the decisions you didn't make” Interview with Casey Hudson (Director) http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/04/28/casey-hudson-interview-mass-effect-3.aspx “For people who are invested in these characters and the back-story of the universe and everything, all of these things come to a resolution in Mass Effect 3. And they are resolved in a way that's very different based on what you would do in those situations.” Interview with Casey Hudson (Director) http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/02/casey-hudson-bioware-co-created-mass-effect-3-with-the-sometimes-cranky-fans-interview/ “Fans want to make sure that they see things resolved, they want to get some closure, a great ending. I think they’re going to get that.” “Mass Effect 3 is all about answering all the biggest questions in the lore, learning about the mysteries and the Protheans and the Reapers, being able to decide for yourself how all of these things come to an end.” Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?” Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.” Interview with Casey Hudson (Director) http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2 Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] “Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?” Hudson: “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.” “We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player decide what your story is.” EDIT: Couple more interesting quotes I found, enjoy......or not. Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1027650/mass_effect_3_reapers_can_win_bioware.html Mass Effect 3 will shake up the player's moral choices more than ever before, even going so far as allowing the Reapers to win the battle for Earth, according to BioWare's community representative Mike Gamble. In an inteview with NowGamer at Gamescom, we asked if BioWare was taking risks with Mass Effect 3's plot, including a negative ending in which the Reapers win. Gamble simply said, "Yes". We asked him again to confirm what he had just said and he said, "Yes". Mike Gamble (Associate Producer) http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1229983/mass_effect_3_developer_interview_shepard_coop_story_details.html "Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a totally different way of playing" Casey Hudson (Director) http://gamescatalyst.com/2012/03/casey-hudson-kinect-the-future-of-interactive-stories/ “The whole idea of Mass Effect3 is resolving all of the biggest questions, about the Protheons and the Reapers, and being in the driver's seat to end the galaxy and all of these big plot lines, to decide what civilizations are going to live or die: All of these things are answered in Mass Effect 3.” Casey Hudson (Director) http://www.computerandvideogames.com/336331/interviews/mass-effect-3-we-cant-go-on-holiday-our-dlc-is-really-good/?page=2 “There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things - it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who plays it.” My issue was mainly with this one: “There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things - it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who plays it.” Your previous actions actually have a great impact midgame in ME3, but on the very end they are completelly meaningless. You get the same 3 endings no matter what choices you took, you just need a minimal amount of EMS to get the synthesis ending, and a high amount to get a small extra scene, but how you made your choices during the three games is completelly meaningless. You can still choose any ending and get the same cutscene. Everyone's final moments are exactly the same. | ||
|
CobaltBlu
United States919 Posts
I don't see what movies have to do with this. They aren't in a position to add or edit content as readily as you are in video games although you do sometimes get deleted scenes, alternate endings or director cuts on DVDs. They also have their own developed culture to work within and I hope games don't have to operate within that same space for some reason. | ||
| ||
