Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BioWare Announces Free DLC To Add More To the Mass Effect 3 Endings

Comments Filter:
  • by Githaron (2462596) on Friday April 06, 2012 @03:59PM (#39601211)
    If you feed someone crap with frosting on it, you are still feeding them crap.
  • by stewartjm (608296) on Friday April 06, 2012 @03:59PM (#39601225)
    It's not just a disappointing ending. It's an ending that was obviously duct taped onto the end to shove it out the door 6-12 months before it should have been released.

    And the only response from BioWare is typical PR spin, with wonderful PR phrases such as "we value our fans" and "artistic integrity".
  • by wierd_w (1375923) on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:13PM (#39601357)

    This surprises anyone?

    For some reason, software companies feel that spaghetti wrapped in duct tape, (and in the case of game software), and that rough plots that are abrasive to the senses are "good enough", as long as they can "ship early!"

    Nobody takes pride in their work or product anymore when it comes to software, except for independent hobby programmers.

    It seems any time that *money!!* gets involved, quality slips, integrity dries up, and the bullshit gets deep. Really, it is just as much the public's insatiable desire for "WANT NAOW!" As it is the greed that feeds on it at fault.

    We can't stop EA from being stupid assholes that ruin franchises and abuse studios. What we can do is control our side of the demand chain, and make their antics unprofitable.

    The way to send EA the message is to buy their games used for 20$, and post pictures of the receipt on their forums as proof as part of the signature. If not their forum, any other forums you post at will do. Be sure the signature explains why you did this.

    This is WORSE than not buying the game. Your making use of their support services actually COSTS them money, that will NEVER receive payment from you for. Hit them in the wallet, where it hurts the most.

  • by raydobbs (99133) on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:22PM (#39601453) Homepage Journal

    ...the distinction is clearly not important to EA or what's left of Bioware. I can honestly say that given this news, I have -zero- desire to play the series again as-is. This was a journey best not taken at all, and it has made me reflect on all the time I've wasted playing games in general. If I am being told a narrative, then it should do so - if I am part of the narrative, don't yank the control of it from me at the end because you don't like the possibility I will chose something you don't want to do. Also, you don't go all 'werewolf' and torch everything in the end - it makes people's investment a fruitless one. Until game makers figure that out, I am done with 'interactive fiction' titles - ESPECIALLY from these two.

  • by Omestes (471991) <omestes&gmail,com> on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:30PM (#39601549) Homepage Journal

    just because you can whine really loud it doesn't mean you can dictate to a game developer how to make their games.

    Why ever not? They make a consumer product, the consumers don't like it. They either fix it, or the consumers go else where with their money next time.

    Works just fine. We're not talking about fine art here. EA can keep their "artistic integrity", but no one has to buy it; that also is a perfectly fine conclusion to this story. Outside of the fact that people won't give them money again, no one is forcing them to change their ending, or make their game in a certain way. They are free to make the worlds crappiest game, and I'm free to never give them money again.

    I'm not one to talk though, since EA has been on my shit-list for a long time (over a decade now). I always think twice before giving them money, and generally wait for the first month of player reviews, if the game looks really solid (more solid that anything else made by a different company). And I will never, ever, buy their DLC. Further, I'm one of the only person who never really found Mass Effect terribly fun. The first one was okay (outside of being forced to hide behind walls 90% of the time). The second one took away everything I liked about the first, so I never really gave two shits about the third one.

  • by GmExtremacy (2579091) on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:42PM (#39601683)

    just because you can whine really loud it doesn't mean you can dictate to a game developer how to make their games.

    No one is saying that Bioware is forced to make anything. What they're saying is that they're displeased with what Bioware did make, and that they would like Bioware to fix it. It's Bioware's call after that.

    You know, voting with your wallet? I'm really tired of people who think criticism is bad/giving your opinion is bad. Neither equates to thinking you have the ability to force someone to do what you want.

  • by lattyware (934246) <gareth@lattyware.co.uk> on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:47PM (#39601723) Homepage Journal

    That's where you are wrong. It was never about 'liking' the ending - to have a 'Shepherd rides off into the sunset happily ever after' ending would be terrible, as it doesn't fit the games. It's about an ending that gives you closure, shows you what happened after and how the choices you made affected the world. That's what they are adding, and they are doing it right in that way.

    An ending you don't like is a fact of any work - be it a book, film or game. An ending that doesn't fulfill is another thing, and that's what people have a problem with. It's the rough equivalent of Sam and Frodo getting to Mt. Doom and it just ending as the ring falls in. Sure, you know it ended, you know the main thing, but all of the little stuff surrounding it, the characters you got invested in, the places and events you cared about, you want to know how it all mattered in the end.

  • by LateArthurDent (1403947) on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:49PM (#39601757)

    just because you can whine really loud it doesn't mean you can dictate to a game developer how to make their games. anyone who thinks the difference in endings is the cut scene color wasn't paying attention to the story at all.

    I don't have a problem with the endings not being different enough (although I do have a problem with the difference to the endings essentially boiling down to a last second decision. You should be locked down to an ending based on choices you've made throughout the series).

    What I do have a problem with is the lack of a satisfactory ending. Hollywood has historically placed happy endings everywhere they don't belong. People understandably complained about this because when you stick a happy ending on, for example, The Count of Monte Cristo, you just removed the entire moral lesson intended in the novel. Unfortunately, the result of this backlash is that people now think that emotionally complex endings where not everything works out in the end is "artistic" and we should just plop that everywhere. That's the exact same thing Hollywood has been doing with the happy endings, except that you're wrapping everything up with a bow of a different, sadder color.

    The ending of a story needs to fit a story. For Edmond Dantes, he needs to accomplish his revenge masterfully, destroy all of his enemies exactly as he planned, only to find his life empty when all is said and done. For Shepard (s)he needs to do what (s)he's always done: beat all the fucking odds and accomplish the mission. If you're playing a Shepard that has sacrificed much along the way via the renegade route, that means a lot of bodies pave the way to final awesomeness. If you've been playing the game by taking the time to save kittens from trees, that means absolutely everything works out, synthetics are saved, organics are saved, the cycle is ended, and the mass relays are intact to usher in a new era of collaboration in the galaxy. Why? Because that's what your audience has invested all this time to achieve. Mass Effect isn't some literary masterpiece, it's an escapist reality where you get to be a badass. It's an action story in a sci-fi world. You don't play the game because you want to know how it ends, you play for the journey, and it better end exactly where you were planning to take that journey.

    That's how the other two games operated, and maybe you want to pretend that wrapping a story that had absolutely no depth to it in an ambiguous ending increases the artistic value of the thing, but the rest of us see it as a cop-out and a bait and switch ploy. Those of us who just wanted to shut our brains off for a few hours were forced to turn them back on, and once you turn your brain on to try to figure out what the hell just happened you start asking questions such as *WHY WAS THE NORMANDY INSIDE A MASS EFFECT FIELD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BATTLE FOR EARTH?* Not only is the ending NOT the artistic masterpiece EA is claiming it is, but it's poorly thought out and cliched.

  • by wazzzup (172351) <astromac.fastmail@fm> on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:51PM (#39601775)

    ...it's the way the ending was implemented.

    Battle Readiness high or low? Doesn't matter, same cutscene.
    Geth or Quarians alive? Doesn't matter, same cutscene.
    Rachni queen alive or dead? Doesn't matter, same cutscene.
    Renegade or Paragon? Doesn't matter, same cutscene.

    Regardless of plot holes and deux ex machina, what pissed me off was that the last 10 minutes of the game was antithetical to the way the entire series - hundreds of hours of playtime - functioned up to that point. The whole frickin' point of Mass Effect was that your choices mattered but ultimately they just didn't. And the fact that choosing control, destroy or synthesize only ended up changing the color of the explosions (okay plants had circuit boards in their leaves if you chose synthesize) was a fart in a bathtub.

    I had a Paragon save and a Renegade save from Mass Effect 2 and played the Paragon first. There is no incentive whatsoever to play the Renegade save. I'm not even interested in any DLC because it's all pointless.

  • by lattyware (934246) <gareth@lattyware.co.uk> on Friday April 06, 2012 @05:11PM (#39601969) Homepage Journal
    I'm just talking about why there was such an uproar. Plenty of films, books and even games have endings lots of people don't like, but the endings that don't answer questions and give closure are the ones where everyone has a problem with them. People can live with an ending they don't like - but an ending that doesn't leave them feeling like it's done? People do this kind of thing. It's the difference between some people not liking it, and virtually everyone who played the game being dissapointed by it.
  • by Unoriginal_Nickname (1248894) on Friday April 06, 2012 @05:13PM (#39601989)

    To be totally fair, EA doesn't do this stuff out of malice. EA's acquisitions fail because their executives are miserably incompetent.

    Basically this is what happens: some manager plays a game made by a beloved studio or minor competitor, and they get all starry-eyed about the amazing things the studio could do with some extra money. EA buys them, and it works fine for a little while. Then, some executive realizes that their subsidiary's games are really profitable, so they order the subsidiary to expand and work on more games. Other executives order rolling staffing changes based on whatever project sounds popular at the time. Quality slips as team members are overworked and no longer emotionally invested. Meanwhile the key staff, usually the founders, are used to dealing with small teams and small budgets. They allow themselves to be divided across too many projects to be effective managers. No longer constrained by small budgets, their ambitions explode and runaway projects become a major problem. EA's managers try to put the studio back on track by setting firm deadlines, but due to an institutional lack of effective project management or engineering experience, their deadlines are physically impossible. EA publishes a steaming turd in time for Christmas, decides the unit has lost its magic, and shuts it down. EA's accountants use the ordinary/capital losses to offset their gains from sports, and all of the executives take home a fat bonus.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06, 2012 @05:35PM (#39602159)

    Just because the ending that you made up in your head can be massively different than what they showed us doesn't mean that's what actually happened.

    What they gave us made no sense and provided no closure on top of that. Your entire squad just leaves you alone to take on the reaper forces by yourself? Harbinger just leaves you to do whatever you want and flies off to get a cup of coffee? Everyone lives at the end anyway, but you're stuck on Earth and your squad is stuck on some random jungle planet including the two that were with you at the end? EDI survives the destroy option? The fuck?

    If you honestly think that ME3 had a legit ending then you must have seen something completely different than what was on my disk.

  • by arkhan_jg (618674) on Friday April 06, 2012 @05:57PM (#39602405)

    *WHY WAS THE NORMANDY INSIDE A MASS EFFECT FIELD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BATTLE FOR EARTH?*

    And in my case, WTF is Garrus doing on board the Normandy doing a mass relay jump when a couple of minutes ago he was running for his life alongside me trying to avoid getting blown away by a Reaper on the final attack? And where the hell did the Illusive Man come from?

    And after some 120+ hours game time, it comes down to some deus ex machina responsible for the whole business? I could have shot some power conduit back in Mass Effect 1 and saved us all the trouble?

    I can live with an unhappy ending - my shepard giving up her life, anderson's life, even that of everyone on the Normandy to save the galaxy and stop the reapers fits with the story - giving up everything for the mission. But at least have some consequences to my prior actions. It didn't matter one goddamn how well or poorly I did in the build up to retaking earth in single player, it makes basically no difference. If I'd spammed multiplayer to get my 'readiness' rating up higher than its possible to in single player, I'd get a few seconds clip of N7 armour moving, and that's it. No impact upon how many reapers there are, how hard the final missions are, whether my companions live or die at the end. Nuttin.

    Worse than that, the final scenes have no relevence or are barely related to any of the game I've just played, or the two predecessors. When my final suicide mission companions somehow end up on the Normandy heading out the Mass Relay when last I saw the ship was deep in the fighting, trying to buy me time... What the hell?? And when you've just stranded millions of aliens in earth orbit due to the destruction of the Relays, you only zoom in on stories told about the Sheppur some time in the future on the planet the Normandy crashed on?

    I didn't need a HAPPY ending (though having the happiness relate to how hard I freaking worked or not would be nice) - as said, making a final ultimate sacrifice having said my goodbyes fits - but after the amount of time we've all put in to get here, I thought they'd at least put a bit more effort into having them make SENSE instead of the same weird ending upon your final choice amounting to a button which chooses which colour explosions you get.

    It feels like the outsourced the ending to the same guy who came up with the one for Deus Ex: HR. At least with that it was only one game, instead of a series conclusion we've been waiting since 2007 for.

  • by manwargi (1361031) on Friday April 06, 2012 @07:26PM (#39603121)

    I'd heard another major complaint about that photo was that it's a plot hole-- the last time the quarians were able to safely live on a planet without their suits was a thousand years ago.

    I figured that there were too many people expecting a sexy secret, but I however was hoping they wouldn't just make the quarians into purple humans. It was bad enough the asari looked almost exactly like humans. I would have liked quarians to be very alien looking in some way, and perhaps in particular Tali's appearance never being shown in-game. A nice condition about her character was that since her immune system was so vunerable and her appearance never revealed, a Shepard that romances her does so because of who she is on the inside, even if quarians turned out to be hideous and covered in bed sores. That continuity error of a photo was not only a copout, it cheapened that theme.

  • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Friday April 06, 2012 @07:39PM (#39603227) Homepage

    I'm just talking about why there was such an uproar.

    Well, I can't say why the uproar reached this magnitude, but the fact is that the ending is broken more then a few ways. It's not just that it doesn't give closure or answers all the questions, it's that it is lazy (i.e. color swap) and doesn't even make any sense on a very basic levels, it has characters showing up in places without explanation for how they got there and no time for them to have gone there. So it's not just bad, it's broken, which especially considering that the rest of the game and the rest of the series is perfectly fine is just a little weird.

  • They could have, at the very least, made the photo's hands match the character model.

    They took the picture, and 'shopped out the ring and pinky fingers. Only when you look at a quarian's hands, they have a thumb, a finger, a large gap, and another finger. Like chopping out the middle and ring finger.

    It was just half-assed and stupid. Make the face look like the voice actress. Or something. Something other than a stock photo with lens flare and poor 'shopping.

"I have just one word for you, my boy...plastics." - from "The Graduate"

Working...