Mass Effect 3

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I see you all got the news. well it's cool to hear even though this was said


Bioshock Creator Says The Anger Over Mass Effect 3′s Ending Makes Him Sad
Yesterday 2:00 PM
If those calling on BioWare to change the ending to Mass Effect 3 somehow get what they want, they would still be disappointed, says the creator of Bioshock, Ken Levine.



Read More

source: kotaku


lol I didn't know if I should have bothered to put it up from last night. I'm sure most would have said he has no Idea what fans real issue with it was. which was closure. and the fact that Bioware set them selves up with saying what they said about having "your own ending the way you want it." compared to when he talks . which is obvious it's gonna go the way he and his writers want the story to go and the way he chooses to end it with out fans say so. welll I'll let you have your say on what he said. it's obvious he doesn't know the full details he's busy with his own thing/ big upcoming game any way.

It's not the ending we want.

But, the ending we deserve.

 

[The Squirrel]

If I don't like a movie or a book, it's fine, I just won't watch/read it again. But to spend over a 100 hours playing a video game franchise that was built on player choice, and then have that choice ripped from you in the last moments of a game, yeah I'm going to be bitter.

 

[Matt]

The argument would have merit if Bioware didn't harp time and time again about how this is as much the player's story as it is theirs, that the player can create their own ending, etc.

 

[Master Chief]

I have a crazy amount of respect for Levine and he's not saying anything new but yeah, Bioware brought it on themselves. And using Harry Potter to contrast the situation, it would have been like Rowling ending the last book without an epilogue.

 

[zenith16]

The argument would have merit if Bioware didn't harp time and time again about how this is as much the player's story as it is theirs, that the player can create their own ending, etc.

that's right on point. And that's what I was thinking when I read that last night. and it was clear that Ken Levine didn't know the full extent of the details on what Bioware did to get this kind of a back lash. if he saw that and wasn't so busy with his new Bioshock game he'd know better then to have said any thing. As I said its not the same deal when he talks about his games. Bioware set them selves up. Unfortunately to get this back lash.

I doubt we'll see Ken Levine in that situation. But as I said if he knew the full details he wouldn't have said a damn thing like he did. If it were me I wouldn't said a thing at all with out full details.


you, squirrel and chief are on the mark here. They(Bioware) brought it on them selves.

 

[Balthus Dire]

I'm sorry, and maybe I'm alone here, but I find it so annoying how most of the "Bioware should stick to their guns" type articles completely gloss over the REAL reason people are bummed about the endings of ME3. I have all the respect in the world for anyone who worked on Bioshock, but seriously.

To use his dumb Harry Potter example:
“Just as J.K. Rowling can end her books and say that is the end of Harry Potter. I don’t think she should be forced to make another one.”

Again, the "end" of Mass Effect isn't even remotely the issue for most people. It'd be more like if JK Rowling ended Harry Potter with Harry lost down a mineshaft and his little friends stranded on an island in the middle of nowhere. Oh, and right before Harry gets lost to his ambiguous fate he casts a mega-spell that dooms the entire planet.

Like, no offense to anyone, but if you're gonna comment about the issue at least educate yourself first.

 

[Matt]

I have a crazy amount of respect for Levine and he's not saying anything new but yeah, Bioware brought it on themselves. And using Harry Potter to contrast the situation, it would have been like Rowling ending the last book without an epilogue.

It's not even like that for two reasons:

1) If Deathly Hallows ended with Harry going to sleep, having killed Voldemort and knowing all was right in the world (the end of the chapter before the epilogue), then the book would've had a perfect amount of closure. The epilogue was just gravy. What ME3 did, is as if Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows ended with the talk between Harry and Dumbledore in what may or may not have been the afterlife.

2) It IS Rowling's story. She never told fans that they would be able to make their own ending and that no two endings would be the same.

 

[Speedball]

Sorry Speedball, I'm calling bull **** on that. I liked the ending, worked well for my Shepard but look at some of the stuff that Bioware said. No two endings will be the same, the player will craft their ending based on the decisions they made, no "pick A,B, or C," ending, etc. Bioware pulled a Peter Molyneux.

I just don't think it's lying. It's something else, exaggerating, I guess. Lying would be if the game didn't end at all.

I mean, would people have been happy of the ending only left you with destroying the Reapers? That would have been a lie, because then there would be no choice. What other choices could there have been?

 

[Matt]

I just don't think it's lying. It's something else, exaggerating, I guess. Lying would be if the game didn't end at all.

I mean, would people have been happy of the ending only left you with destroying the Reapers? That would have been a lie, because then there would be no choice. What other choices could there have been?

Once again, I point to Alpha Protocol. The ending follows a general path but there are countless alternatives based on the player's choices, love interests, etc. The ending can be anything from the player riding off into the sunset with the girl to the player becoming the head of an international terror network, to the player dying and just about anything in between.

ME3 should've been similar. I am so sick of this, "The ending had to be bitter sweet," nonsense. No it didn't. I am not *****ing about the lack of a happy ending (as I fully intended for my Shepard to die). I am *****ing about the lack of an option for one. If the player meets X amount of goals and makes certain choices, Shepard should be able to live. There should be endings where Shepard is indoctrinated, there should be endings where the Reapers win, there should be endings where Shepard and the allied forces give the Reapers a right ass kicking. Any logical conclusion, should be available, provided that the right choices are made. That is what we were promised. That is what should have happened.

And it may have started out as exaggerating, but it did become a lie. When Hudson continued to say things along those lines, even as late in the game as two months ago, when he obviously must've known what the ending was, it stopped being exaggeration and started being a lie/false advertisement.

 

[Erzengel]

I stayed out of this thread because I didn't want to be spoiled. I just finished the game a half an hour ago and I feel like how most of you feel.

When they are fixing the ending for this game can they redo the sex scenes as well?

 

[Master Chief]

When they are fixing the ending for this game can they redo the sex scenes as well?

Yeah, it's so weird that Cortez has the exact same body as Shepard.

Anyways, hahah, allegedly the ending was thought up by Casey Hudson and Mac Walters. It sure as s**t would explain a lot.

"BioWare writer Patrick Weekes is well known on the Penny Arcade forums as user Takyris. Earlier, that account allegedly posted a fairly damning diatribe about Mass Effect 3's controversial ending. In it, the author claims that the game's finale was written by Casey Hudson and lead writer Mac Walters without any input from the rest of the team, and many protests from the other writers were ultimately ignored."

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/...-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/

 

[BrollySupersj]

yea i realized that, IGN is so misleading sometimes... it says ending with more closure is incoming, like it was actually announced. im pretty sure he never flat out said a better ending is coming.

This happened to me as well. When I read the title of the article I thought, "Holy ****, the fans did it?!".

But really, the article is nothing more than the founder of Bioware talking about the fans and the reaction to the ending. Along with content that provides more closure. It in no way confirms a true alternate ending.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah, it's so weird that Cortez has the exact same body as Shepard.

Anyways, hahah, allegedly the ending was thought up by Casey Hudson and Mac Walters. It sure as s**t would explain a lot.

"BioWare writer Patrick Weekes is well known on the Penny Arcade forums as user Takyris. Earlier, that account allegedly posted a fairly damning diatribe about Mass Effect 3's controversial ending. In it, the author claims that the game's finale was written by Casey Hudson and lead writer Mac Walters without any input from the rest of the team, and many protests from the other writers were ultimately ignored."

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/...-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/

This would explain alot.

And if it's true, then...in a weird way...the angry fans are speaking out for the writers that were ignored as well.

 

[X Knight]

Once again, I point to Alpha Protocol. The ending follows a general path but there are countless alternatives based on the player's choices, love interests, etc. The ending can be anything from the player riding off into the sunset with the girl to the player becoming the head of an international terror network, to the player dying and just about anything in between.

ME3 should've been similar. I am so sick of this, "The ending had to be bitter sweet," nonsense. No it didn't. I am not *****ing about the lack of a happy ending (as I fully intended for my Shepard to die). I am *****ing about the lack of an option for one. If the player meets X amount of goals and makes certain choices, Shepard should be able to live. There should be endings where Shepard is indoctrinated, there should be endings where the Reapers win, there should be endings where Shepard and the allied forces give the Reapers a right ass kicking. Any logical conclusion, should be available, provided that the right choices are made. That is what we were promised. That is what should have happened.

And it may have started out as exaggerating, but it did become a lie. When Hudson continued to say things along those lines, even as late in the game as two months ago, when he obviously must've known what the ending was, it stopped being exaggeration and started being a lie/false advertisement.

 

[Fenrir]

Spoiler

I don't believe that having something the indoctrination theory in the final game was in Bioware's plan all along, but also think it wasn't completely unintentional either. It is something that was supposed to be there but somehow got sloppily changed or altered at the last minute in a way that left traces of its original form and that is what fans picked up on. I think Bioware intended to have the ending involving the Reapers putting Shepard through some some sort of crazy mindf**k as a last resort - that the final battle was not on Earth or out there in the galaxy (where the Reapers were either at a stalemate or had already lost), but in Shepard's mind. It's a great way to make the climax of the story more 'personal' for the player to have such an intimate setting for the galaxy's last stand. With victory a given for Shepard and his allies, now in a desperate attempt for survival, the Reapers try to psychologically influence Shepard into not completely destroying them. The tables have turned. It is the Reapers now who are now fearing extinction.

In this theory, Shepard is not indoctrinated per se, but the Reapers are trying to subconsciously divert him into choosing an outcome that doesn't result in complete destruction of the Reapers. The events on the Citadel and the three choices Shepard faces are in fact real. But in such close proximity to the Reapers, Shepard's mind is open to attack and what he experiences is the Reapers trying to distort his perception of reality through generating confusion and by mixing it with hallucinations, exaggerations and constructs of his own mind. Maybe the confrontation between the Illusive Man and Anderson really did take place, and the newfound powers of the Illusive Man provided the Reapers further access to Shepard's mind to create a mental projection of the Catalyst-child based on Shepard's worst fears to make him more vulnerable to manipulation. Basically, the Crucible has made victory a foregone conclusion. It's not a matter of if Shepard triumphs in the end, it's simply a question of how. The Crucible has given Shepard the power to decide the Reapers' ultimate fate. Does he defeat them by controlling them (control option)? Does he fulfill the Reapers' mission of harvesting advanced civilisations by completely integrating all organic and synthetic life thereby making them redundant (synthesis option)? Or does he rid the galaxy of the Reaper menace once and for all (destroy option)?

The Catalyst-child is the construct through which the Reapers seek to manipulate Shepard into not destroying them. That is why the Catalyst paints the destroy option as a lose-lose situation because it is, in fact, a win-win situation for Shepard and his allies that ends with both Shepard making it through the entire ordeal alive and the Reapers finished for good.

Now, whatever Bioware decides to do with the ending, I sure as hell hope that they don't change it. The best solution to this problem is not to alter the climax, but expand it with an extended epilogue that clears up a lot of the ambiguity, shows you the precise outcomes of your decisions throughout your long journey, the ultimate fate of your squadmates and seals the gaping plot and logic holes. The fact that Ray Muzyka mentions giving fans something that 'provides more closure' is very reassuring for me, and indicative that Bioware is on the right path to figuring their way out of this debacle in a manner that is satisfactory to both gamers and the company itself.

 

[Master Chief]

It's not even like that for two reasons:

1) If Deathly Hallows ended with Harry going to sleep, having killed Voldemort and knowing all was right in the world (the end of the chapter before the epilogue), then the book would've had a perfect amount of closure. The epilogue was just gravy. What ME3 did, is as if Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows ended with the talk between Harry and Dumbledore in what may or may not have been the afterlife.

2) It IS Rowling's story. She never told fans that they would be able to make their own ending and that no two endings would be the same.

I haven't read it in a while but that ending does sound a lot like what we got, ignoring the Normandy bit lol of course. There definitely should have been more variation though.

This would explain alot.

And if it's true, then...in a weird way...the angry fans are speaking out for the writers that were ignored as well.

Chris Priestly said it was fake on the BSN but it sounds much too true.

 

[Fenrir]

ME3 should've been similar. I am so sick of this, "The ending had to be bitter sweet," nonsense. No it didn't. I am not *****ing about the lack of a happy ending (as I fully intended for my Shepard to die). I am *****ing about the lack of an option for one. If the player meets X amount of goals and makes certain choices, Shepard should be able to live. There should be endings where Shepard is indoctrinated, there should be endings where the Reapers win, there should be endings where Shepard and the allied forces give the Reapers a right ass kicking. Any logical conclusion, should be available, provided that the right choices are made. That is what we were promised. That is what should have happened.

I don't necessarily agree. I fully support the idea that the ending to the Mass Effect trilogy should be bittersweet, because the first two games already gave you the opportunity of achieving the best possible outcome provided you made all the right decisions. It seems only fitting then, that the last decision you make should be your most difficult one. There is no 'ideal' way to do it. Wars demand sacrifice, and aside from the choice of leaving Ashley or Kaiden on Virmire, throughout the first two games Shepard rarely if ever faced choices in which he had so much at stake and no easy way out of. A bittersweet ending enhances the dramatic punch of your struggle. You ultimately celebrate your triumph in the end, but not without also mourning for your losses all of which make for a more complete and memorable ending than something that concludes with just "happily ever after".

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Chris Priestly said it was fake on the BSN but it sounds much too true.

Yeah.

And the ideas sound incredible, too. The person who wrote that is definitely a storyteller. Or at the very least understand storytelling. The idea of having the Reapers come at you, only to be met with the different armies Shepard has called to Arms so to bring around the different races that have been attacked by the Reapers sounds like solid storytelling foundations put to use there.

It sounds believable. And to be fair, at no point does he actually bad mouth Walters or Hudson in that. So it's not like he's railroading them at all. It just sounds like there's a frustration that they diverted from a process that seemed to do them extremely well. Playing Mass Effect 3, it is weird to see how well written so much of it is...to then get what the ending was.

Like I said, if it's true...it explains alot.

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

I don't necessarily agree. I fully support the idea that the ending to the Mass Effect trilogy should be bittersweet, because the first two games already gave you the opportunity of achieving the best possible outcome provided you made all the right decisions. It seems only fitting then, that the last decision you make should be your most difficult one. There is no 'ideal' way to do it. Wars demand sacrifice, and aside from the choice of leaving Ashley or Kaiden on Virmire, throughout the first two games Shepard rarely if ever faced choices in which he had so much at stake and no easy way out of. A bittersweet ending enhances the dramatic punch of your struggle. You ultimately celebrate your triumph in the end, but not without also mourning for your losses all of which make for a more complete and memorable ending than something that concludes with just "happily ever after".

I totally agree, if the ending was always going to be bittersweet than I am down for that. They just needed to follow through on the emotional experience of the bittersweet ending which doesn't happen at all so it ends up feeling incredibly hollow.

 

[Balthus Dire]

Once again, I point to Alpha Protocol. The ending follows a general path but there are countless alternatives based on the player's choices, love interests, etc. The ending can be anything from the player riding off into the sunset with the girl to the player becoming the head of an international terror network, to the player dying and just about anything in between.

ME3 should've been similar. I am so sick of this, "The ending had to be bitter sweet," nonsense. No it didn't. I am not *****ing about the lack of a happy ending (as I fully intended for my Shepard to die). I am *****ing about the lack of an option for one. If the player meets X amount of goals and makes certain choices, Shepard should be able to live. There should be endings where Shepard is indoctrinated, there should be endings where the Reapers win, there should be endings where Shepard and the allied forces give the Reapers a right ass kicking. Any logical conclusion, should be available, provided that the right choices are made. That is what we were promised. That is what should have happened.

And it may have started out as exaggerating, but it did become a lie. When Hudson continued to say things along those lines, even as late in the game as two months ago, when he obviously must've known what the ending was, it stopped being exaggeration and started being a lie/false advertisement.

This times a billion.

Even though I'd be content with an epilogue DLC, the ending in no shape or form lives up to what could and should have been. Some of Matt's ideas here would've been so fantastic if they were included. I would've replayed the whole franchise a billion times over just to see those different results play out. Alas, I don't think DLC can come close to providing that level of epicness.

Yeah, it's so weird that Cortez has the exact same body as Shepard.

Anyways, hahah, allegedly the ending was thought up by Casey Hudson and Mac Walters. It sure as s**t would explain a lot.

"BioWare writer Patrick Weekes is well known on the Penny Arcade forums as user Takyris. Earlier, that account allegedly posted a fairly damning diatribe about Mass Effect 3's controversial ending. In it, the author claims that the game's finale was written by Casey Hudson and lead writer Mac Walters without any input from the rest of the team, and many protests from the other writers were ultimately ignored."

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/...-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/

If that's actually true than any shred of sympathy I had for Bioware is gone.

 

[Matt]

I don't necessarily agree. I fully support the idea that the ending to the Mass Effect trilogy should be bittersweet, because the first two games already gave you the opportunity of achieving the best possible outcome provided you made all the right decisions. It seems only fitting then, that the last decision you make should be your most difficult one. There is no 'ideal' way to do it. Wars demand sacrifice, and aside from the choice of leaving Ashley or Kaiden on Virmire, throughout the first two games Shepard rarely if ever faced choices in which he had so much at stake and no easy way out of. A bittersweet ending enhances the dramatic punch of your struggle. You ultimately celebrate your triumph in the end, but not without also mourning for your losses all of which make for a more complete and memorable ending than something that concludes with just "happily ever after".

And a bittersweet ending should be A option. Not the only option. Not when we've spent years being told we can build the ending to OUR story. It shouldn't be up to Hudson, or Bioware or you or anyone else to determine when MY ending should be. Not with as much as we were told it is our ending and our story. All that Bioware should've done was provide us with the tools to craft our ending. Not decide it for us.

 

[Matt]

I totally agree, if the ending was always going to be bittersweet than I am down for that. They just needed to follow through on the emotional experience of the bittersweet ending which doesn't happen at all so it ends up feeling incredibly hollow.

But we were told it was our ending. There should be no single ending. It shouldn't have to be bittersweet just as it shouldn't have to be happy and cheery.

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

And a bittersweet ending should be A option. Not the only option. Not when we've spent years being told we can build the ending to OUR story. It shouldn't be up to Hudson, or Bioware or you or anyone else to determine when MY ending should be. Not with as much as we were told it is our ending and our story. All that Bioware should've done was provide us with the tools to craft our ending. Not decide it for us.

Eh, they could have still crafted a very responsive ending while still carrying through a bittersweet tone.

The notion of player interaction having to equal possible happy ending is not something I find appealing as a consumer of these products who hopes that they can continue to evolve as an art form.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'm just happy to hear Alpha Protocol get mentioned. Man, I really liked that game.

And...it proved that it was possible. Yeah, it might be hard as hell and maybe even bring along issues (if you want to mention bugs/glitches, or failing on other gameplay fronts) but that game, and Obsidian, proved that the ending of a game could be determined by a ton of factors, determined by you. The player.

So, yeah. I agree with Matt.

Yeah, Hudson lied. When you're saying what he said two months prior to the games release...either he was lying, or the end of development was a just a horrible, horrible mess. Even then, he's the director. He's the one that should know everything. And if he knows the ending won't be what he was saying...yeah. That's a problem.

That post from one of the writers seemed to hint that it may have been. He said there were cutscenes, three, of the state Earth was in that must have been cut extremely late.

 

[Matt]

Eh, they could have still crafted a very responsive ending while still carrying through a bittersweet tone.

The notion of player interaction having to equal possible happy ending is not something I find appealing as a consumer of these products who hopes that they can continue to evolve as an art form.

But the tone ought not be pre-determined. Again, look at Alpha Protocol. I can have the happy ending, the bitter sweet ending (Thorton saves the world but dies or loses his allies in the process), the dark ending (Thorton becomes the terrorist) and just about anything in between. The tone can vary from player to player without sacrificing any artistic integrity. It doesn't have to be any individual tone. It didn't have to be all or nothing. That certainly was not what we were promised.