Forbes thinks Retaking Mass Effect 3 is a good thing.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Thoric485:
Forbes doesn't run on EA ad money, so it's no surprise it has space for real journalism.

I don't know if I would call what Dave Thier does real journalism any more then most gaming sites. I'm not saying that its not less bias towards game publishers just that he is a bit of a fan boy and just because Forbes pays him a nickel to post things like '5 Lessons in Freelancing From Han Solo' don't make him credible.

Thoric485:

Casey Hudson:

"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."

"It's more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them."

And the interview is from January no less.

First part of the quote he was talking about what they are doing, the rest of it are vague descriptions of how the ending will be like.

Best of luck convincing a judge that this is "false advertising".

Faerillis:
This was in GameInformer, a magazine run by GameStop, clearly advertising for the game.

Not quite sure giving interviews are considered advertising ... IANAL though.

Anyway, good luck with your FCC lawsuit I suppose. If you win. Congratulations! Every developer will have a lawyer right next to him/her during interviews from now on. Just to make sure they cover their asses and don't candidly run their mouth off and say something "dangerous".

It has been disappointing to be called a slew of names by sources I go to for gaming news just because I happen to feel a certain way.

It is refreshing to see some non-gaming press give a topic from our sphere decent coverage, but it is also a bit sad to have that contrast against the name calling we're getting here and elsewhere. Just goes to show I guess that the backlash against this one issue from fans has some broader implications than just getting a different ending put on a game. Maybe that's what the people in our circles are afraid of and why they've been trying to quash this from the start? I have no idea how this will play out, but we are certainly in some interesting times.

Anything but stagnation has to have some positive side, right?

Buretsu:
But it's still an interview, not an advertisement, and thus claims of "false advertising" are not applicable.

Interviews are advertisements. They are released into the public domain specifically to promote the game.

Note:

Dictionary.com:
advertisement
noun
1.a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.
2.a public notice, especially in print.
3.the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public: The news of this event will receive wide advertisement.

Developer interviews are public notices, in print, designed to call the attention of the public to the game. The only difference is that (usually) devs don't have to pay to get interviews published.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not sure any of this legally qualifies as false advertisement. I don't know the legal mumbojumbo nearly well enough. It certainly violates the spirit of the law though, if not necessarily the letter.

Well, Forbes is making a lot of good business sense, as a good business magazine should.

If Bioware wants my money, they have to prove to me now they won't muck up an important franchise at the eleventh hour and destroy five years of investment and commitment to a franchise in one fell swoop.

viranimus:
If there was an actual advertised promise made there might be a case for it, but all anyone is able to cite is what they have interpreted to be incontrovertable promises amounting to a response that boils down to...

OK, bro, so, since this isn't an officla press statement or an advertising campaign, let me tell you about my new game which is gonna be available in the next 10myears or so. This is non officla, but its gonna involve holdeck technonlogy and basiclly be the best game ever. in fact i'm gonna take on board your and every one else who expresses an interest's opinoon as toi how to make it the best game ever. because you, my internet buddies are really like, my co-writers. Buy shares in my new company now, guys.

This is gonna be the best story ever.

... strawman? what're you talking about bro?

deadish:
First part of the quote he was talking about what they are doing, the rest of it are vague descriptions of how the ending will be like.

Best of luck convincing a judge that this is "false advertising".

I haven't said anything about a judge (a legal battle against EA would be a pretty foolish endeavor in any case) and i don't see anything vague about Mr. Hudson explicitly stating that the ending is not in the A,B,C format.

An ending that wasn't in the A,B,C format was DA:O's - there were hundreds of unique endings depending on the Landsmeet, the archdemon fight, your origin story, your romances, every zone main quest. It was great, it really was a recent RPG of theirs where you couldn't classify an ending as A,B,C.

But ME3's ending is definitely like that, and saying that it wasn't in an interview in January was a blatant lie.

Buretsu:

Faerillis:

deadish:

Don't just tell me. Show me where he said that.

I'm asking out of curiosity.

Well from Casey Hudson specifically:
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2

Casey 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.

It's more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them. It would be interesting to see if somebody could put together a chart for that. Even with Mass Effect 2's...

This was in GameInformer, a magazine run by GameStop, clearly advertising for the game.

But it's still an interview, not an advertisement, and thus claims of "false advertising" are not applicable.

No, it means that it doesn't fit within the legally challengable definition of False Advertising, and nowhere in here did I support the one fan who took it to the FTC. It is still an interview done solely for the sake of marketing the game, it is still a deplorable business practice, and in a perfect world they would either have to rectify their mistake or be fined.

Also these descriptions might have been vague, but even so they completely contradict the actual ending. Vague and All Encompassing are different.

Joccaren:

BreakfastMan:

First, that a developer has to live up to fan expectations, or else its reputation will be tarnished.

Whelp, there goes every developers reputation. Sorry every modern developer. Bethesda, you have to stop making Fallout games like Fallout 3. I know you really want to, but the fans say you should not, so I guess your reputation is irrecoverably tarnished.

PS: The "Retake" thing is still asinine.

Ok... I'm sorry but what?
What is the point you are trying to make there?
Sure, if the majority of fans didn't want more Fallout games to be made, and didn't want them, then Bethesda probably wouldn't make them. And if it did make them, they wouldn't be purchased by those fans.

The point I was trying to make is that bending to the fans every whim, like Forbes says developer should, is a very bad idea. Before Fallout 3 came out, only fans of the original Fallout games were Fallout fans. Most hated the idea of the new game and did not want it to be made. They hated it when it came out, despite the fact that it was one of the best games of 2008. If Bethesda had listened to Forbes, we would not have gotten that game. So I am very wary of making something to "appease the fans". Make a good game, and the fans will come. But, they should not feel beholden to the fans every whim, like Forbes suggest here. We would not get innovation, or even any new games then.

Thoric485:

deadish:
First part of the quote he was talking about what they are doing, the rest of it are vague descriptions of how the ending will be like.

Best of luck convincing a judge that this is "false advertising".

I haven't said anything about a judge (a legal battle against EA would be a pretty foolish endeavor in any case) and i don't see anything vague about Mr. Hudson explicitly stating that the ending is not in the A,B,C format.

An ending that wasn't in the A,B,C format was DA:O's - there were hundreds of unique endings depending on the Landsmeet, the archdemon fight, your origin story, your romances, every zone main quest. It was great, it really was a recent RPG of theirs where you couldn't classify an ending as A,B,C.

But ME3's ending is definitely like that, and saying that it wasn't in an interview in January was a blatant lie.

Well, someone did log a complain with the FCC ...

Either way, IMHO this incident will have a "chilling effect" on the industry - especially if the FCC sue Bioware/EA and they lose. You can expect developers to be ultra-careful about what they say now and every interview will take a run through the legal department just to make sure their asses are covered - any statement too concrete or specific, that might be used against them in the future should development not go as planned and something has to be cut, will be purge from the interview.

Oh well, I suppose we can kiss candid interviews good-bye. Every interview now will literally be treated as a press release. If that's the way gamers insist game developers communicate with them, then they will oblige.

Buretsu:

Faerillis:

deadish:

Don't just tell me. Show me where he said that.

I'm asking out of curiosity.

Well from Casey Hudson specifically:
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2

Casey 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.

It's more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them. It would be interesting to see if somebody could put together a chart for that. Even with Mass Effect 2's...

This was in GameInformer, a magazine run by GameStop, clearly advertising for the game.

But it's still an interview, not an advertisement, and thus claims of "false advertising" are not applicable.

Bullshit, there are a few things wrong with that statement: 1. You're dismissing what you asked for in the first place,
2. An interview where you talk about the good features in your game specifically to get people interested in your game is a form of advertising, and 3. Even if it wasn't an advertisement, it would still be a lie, and all he said was Bioware lied about the ending, which as he pointed out, is completely true.

/eyeroll

Ok here we go again.

Casey 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. [bThis 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.

Bold A: We HAVE the ability .. No where does he say that they WILL use it.

Bold B: The endings CAN be, there is no implication this will be utilized.

Bold C: People skip ahead to the ABC bit and completely ignore the fact where he specifically says the ending will NOT be like traditional endings, He basically is saying Yes there is only going to be one ending ... because.... "This story arc is coming to an end with this game"

Now for the love of god will people Quit trolling out this comment as some sort of proof when the only thing this proves is people cant even comprehend what they read. This is why I said people needed to do something else with their time then fawn over the bioware forums and soak up ever little scrap of useless info on the game.. because of shit like this. People simply cannot comprehend what they read or reread something to see if it was implied in a different way then what they assume the meaning of what was said. This is why I personally want a press release or an advertisement for what "promises" were made because I have yet to see those promises were made outside of the ones that people have assumed.

Basically Casey warned the world. No one could hear him over all the imaginary scenarios they were busy dreaming up over their own misinterpretations.

Warachia:

Buretsu:

Faerillis:

Well from Casey Hudson specifically:
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2

This was in GameInformer, a magazine run by GameStop, clearly advertising for the game.

But it's still an interview, not an advertisement, and thus claims of "false advertising" are not applicable.

Bullshit, there are a few things wrong with that statement: 1. You're dismissing what you asked for in the first place,
2. An interview where you talk about the good features in your game specifically to get people interested in your game is a form of advertising, and 3. Even if it wasn't an advertisement, it would still be a lie, and all he said was Bioware lied about the ending, which as he pointed out, is completely true.

I didn't ask for it, the other guy did. I was just giving my thoughts.

And my main point is that he's "guilty of misleading the fans" rather than "guilty of breaking the law", and that the two should not be confused as one and the same. One's punishable with fines, the other's only really punishable with people not buying your game.

After watching numerous videos about indoctronation theories, seeing sources and twitter feeds and the final words of ME3 itself being 'downloadble content' i am forced to believe that they are gonna ship us the 'real' ending later, and say it was an ilaborate mindgame.

On one hand very well played, you made me feel just like an indoctronated person would, i fell for your ending, but dont make me pay even more money for the actual conclusion. The 'real ending' dlc better be free...or ALL games are gonna be a lot worse in the future. This is just like the end of that prince of persia, where the ending was an extra $10.

Sad times ahead

"Forbes is the only magazine that seems to agree with us. Therefore they're the only ones with intelligent insight into the situation."

I'm sorry, but speaking as an outsider, that's seriously the only vibe I get from this whole thing.

Almost every article I've read from people in the industry who acknowledge the controversy without really being that bothered by it, I see a lot of fans going "Wow, way to miss the whole point, guy. You clearly don't understand what we're upset about."

Smeggs:

Tono Makt:

On the other hand, Forbes magazine is taking the time and effort to look at this issue seriously, and offer intelligent and reasonable advice! It's not just saying "You idiot kids. Shut up.", they're treating the fans as if the fans are the equivalent of any other consumer out there. This is awesome.

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality.

Savagezion:

Smeggs:

Tono Makt:

On the other hand, Forbes magazine is taking the time and effort to look at this issue seriously, and offer intelligent and reasonable advice! It's not just saying "You idiot kids. Shut up.", they're treating the fans as if the fans are the equivalent of any other consumer out there. This is awesome.

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality.

Open your eyes. Look up to the skies and seeeeeeeeeee

viranimus:
/eyeroll

Ok here we go again.

Casey 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. [bThis 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.

Bold A: We HAVE the ability .. No where does he say that they WILL use it.

Bold B: The endings CAN be, there is no implication this will be utilized.

Bold C: People skip ahead to the ABC bit and completely ignore the fact where he specifically says the ending will NOT be like traditional endings, He basically is saying Yes there is only going to be one ending ... because.... "This story arc is coming to an end with this game"

Now for the love of god will people Quit trolling out this comment as some sort of proof when the only thing this proves is people cant even comprehend what they read. This is why I said people needed to do something else with their time then fawn over the bioware forums and soak up ever little scrap of useless info on the game.. because of shit like this. People simply cannot comprehend what they read or reread something to see if it was implied in a different way then what they assume the meaning of what was said. This is why I personally want a press release or an advertisement for what "promises" were made because I have yet to see those promises were made outside of the ones that people have assumed.

Basically Casey warned the world. No one could hear him over all the imaginary scenarios they were busy dreaming up over their own misinterpretations.

Nice try. Seriously, it was a nice attempt but the reason people use that quote is because in or out of context, it makes the same false claim. First, it is a direct answer to this question:

"[Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] "Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?"

He said yes, "much more so". The final NOT you bolded, makes no sense. How do you get that he said "only 1 ending" when everything about the response is talking about being able to be more diverse with their endings. They don't need to "consolidate the endings" because it is the end. That is the context and clear message of the quote.

EDIT: You seriously think he meant:
We HAVE the ability, but we aren't going to use it (goes without saying he figured.)
The endings CAN be a lot more different. (But they won't be, again goes without saying)
I still don't get what you are trying say by NOT. It doesn't have 1 ending, it has 3. It has exactly what he said it wouldn't have.

viranimus:
If there was an actual advertised promise made there might be a case for it, but all anyone is able to cite is what they have interpreted to be incontrovertable promises amounting to a response that boils down to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfwOqlnCKQs&t=2m29s

People invested too much time and concern over a mediocre sci fi story, spent entirely too much time on bioware forums and holding bioware to what they interpret to be a promise when no such promise was actually made. Ive still yet to see an actual advertisement or official press release before the game was released that said the game would have 17 different endings, and those endings would be reflective of your choices in the game and that they would all conclude the storyline in one cohesive vein. Its a paradox.

Challenge accepted.

>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 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..."

and for the finally...

>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."

Challenge completed....

Next challenge?

notsosavagemessiah:
The truth is, this reaction would've happened no matter how good the ending was because it wasn't "their" ending. It wasn't how they saw it in their head.

No offence, but this is just insane amounts of closed minded. I cared far more about the ending to the ending to the first Deus Ex game, and I was happy with it. Same with countless TV shows, films, book series. This is not people just over-reacting because they are sad that the game is ending, or that it was a sad ending.

notsosavagemessiah:
This is all irrelevant. If you don't like bioware's story, too bad. It's theirs, they wrote in such a way to leave it open for DLC while trying to wrap things up in a satisfying way. The truth is, this reaction would've happened no matter how good the ending was because it wasn't "their" ending. It wasn't how they saw it in their head. You that support this, need to get over the idea that somehow mass effect belongs to you. It does not. You are not the writers, you didn't put in the time to program the code. The only thing you did do, was buy and play. You didn't put any real work in, therefore, you are NOT entitled to the ability to change it.

Consumer product failed to meet expectations. Criticism and demands for compensation/reparations are perfectly valid regardless of their basis or expectations. Likewise, the product manufacturer has the right to refuse claims it finds are unfounded unless those failures violate consumer protection laws and consumer rights, but in doing so harms the relationship with the consumer.

Consumers are exercising their rights, deal with it.

Tono Makt:
On one hand, it is absolutely insane, and utterly embarrassing for the gaming community with Forbes magazine is the best source for intelligent analysis of the Mass Effect 3 situation. The gaming community should be able to handle this one, and it's dropped the ball. Heck, it tied its hands behind its back and jumped back behind cover when the ball got dropped.

On the other hand, Forbes magazine is taking the time and effort to look at this issue seriously, and offer intelligent and reasonable advice! It's not just saying "You idiot kids. Shut up.", they're treating the fans as if the fans are the equivalent of any other consumer out there. This is awesome.

But then again a lot of the arguments I've seen against the ME3 ending seem to be based around gamers being different from all other consumers in how they interact with the medium, that they're more invested or something because of the interactive nature as opposed to people who watch movies or read books - namely all the people who complain about Moviebob's criticism of the movement by saying that he's treating the gaming audience like a movie audience.

Strain42:
"Forbes is the only magazine that seems to agree with us. Therefore they're the only ones with intelligent insight into the situation."

I'm sorry, but speaking as an outsider, that's seriously the only vibe I get from this whole thing.

Almost every article I've read from people in the industry who acknowledge the controversy without really being that bothered by it, I see a lot of fans going "Wow, way to miss the whole point, guy. You clearly don't understand what we're upset about."

I'm on the outside of this whole thing also, but I agree with the people who are reading "garme jernalisms" and thinking that the writer doesn't understand. We saw Bob's twitter where he just called everyone entitled whiners cause they didn't get the ending they wanted, completely ignoring that most people don't complain about only what the endings were but rather how you arrived at them (being forced to pick an A, B, or C option at the very last instant by a macguffin star baby which completely disregards all previous choices and tells you nothing beyond the immediate actions. It also ignores the outcomes for every other being in the entire game from your closest comrades to doods you've never met on far away planets). Admittedly, what they were was pretty underwhelming to since, as I said, it tells you nothing beyond "Boom, the end."

I have an interesting perspective cause I compare this mess to FF13-2s ending. The ending is equally bleak and depressing.. but the difference is that even though I didn't get the ending I "wanted" I got an ending that made sense. Sure, its a downer ending, but some of the last dialogue in the game before the final engagement is "Hey don't do that shit you're gonna do or bad stuff is gonna happen," You, as both a player and the characters, choose to move forward regardless because you don't believe it. You're fighting the good fight to save the world, how could anything bad come of that? But, sure enough, bad stuff happens. 13-2 also has the looming shadow of "Buy the future DLC to get the 'real' ending" also. But, 13-2's ending leaves room for additions. ME3s, in my opinion, does not; not any additional content that would mean anything though without extensive retconning at least.

Getting back to the idea of "other articles," the game journalism "industry" lives on trolling and flaming their readers because rage = attention. Even the act of that not engaging with a subject beyond acknowledgement could be considered as such when it is something of this magnitude. I think that a lot of game writers aren't as well versed in what they cover as they'd like us to believe. As Forbes said, this could be a precedent that changes how the developers work and I can't cross my fingers enough for that to happen, but how many articles on the ME3 have taken the stand that such broad consumer outcry could serve as a catalyst to get the industry to start giving a shit about their products again? Few to none, cause it's easier to say "Cry more, entitled nerds," and get more hits.

Teh Jammah:

viranimus:
If there was an actual advertised promise made there might be a case for it, but all anyone is able to cite is what they have interpreted to be incontrovertable promises amounting to a response that boils down to...

OK, bro, so, since this isn't an officla press statement or an advertising campaign, let me tell you about my new game which is gonna be available in the next 10myears or so. This is non officla, but its gonna involve holdeck technonlogy and basiclly be the best game ever. in fact i'm gonna take on board your and every one else who expresses an interest's opinoon as toi how to make it the best game ever. because you, my internet buddies are really like, my co-writers. Buy shares in my new company now, guys.

This is gonna be the best story ever.

... strawman? what're you talking about bro?

Being credible and coherent are important factors when promoting a product. But, since you wanted to put it out there, if you said you were making a game and provided a place for people to pre-purchase that product or invest in that product/business based on your claims, and then never delivered, you would be open for litigation because you committed fraud. Bro.

Hey, remember Big Bro from Final Fantasy 7? Your speech patterns remind me a lot of her.

Buretsu:

Warachia:

Buretsu:

But it's still an interview, not an advertisement, and thus claims of "false advertising" are not applicable.

Bullshit, there are a few things wrong with that statement: 1. You're dismissing what you asked for in the first place,
2. An interview where you talk about the good features in your game specifically to get people interested in your game is a form of advertising, and 3. Even if it wasn't an advertisement, it would still be a lie, and all he said was Bioware lied about the ending, which as he pointed out, is completely true.

I didn't ask for it, the other guy did. I was just giving my thoughts.

And my main point is that he's "guilty of misleading the fans" rather than "guilty of breaking the law", and that the two should not be confused as one and the same. One's punishable with fines, the other's only really punishable with people not buying your game.

Then I am very sorry about that, and for point #1; I would like to ask a question, when does it stop being misdirection, and start becoming a lie? One could make a case that they bought this (or any) product based on something the creator said about it that turned out not to be true, and since interviews are a form of advertising, this one was clearly false.
I'm not saying it would be a good idea, just that you could make a feasible argument with it.

Sarge034:

viranimus:
If there was an actual advertised promise made there might be a case for it, but all anyone is able to cite is what they have interpreted to be incontrovertable promises amounting to a response that boils down to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfwOqlnCKQs&t=2m29s

People invested too much time and concern over a mediocre sci fi story, spent entirely too much time on bioware forums and holding bioware to what they interpret to be a promise when no such promise was actually made. Ive still yet to see an actual advertisement or official press release before the game was released that said the game would have 17 different endings, and those endings would be reflective of your choices in the game and that they would all conclude the storyline in one cohesive vein. Its a paradox.

Challenge accepted.

>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 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..."

and for the finally...

>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."

Challenge completed....

Next challenge?

You forgot http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/02/28/mass-effect-3-mac-walters/

Interviewer: I saved the Rachni in the first game, and there was a little tease about them in Mass Effect 2. How big of a repercussion do choices like that have in this game? Will get to play a mission that someone who killed the Rachni wouldn't get?
Mac Walters: The thing I will say about Mass Effect 3 is that the choices you've made previously, and the differences that those choices represent, are much bigger than they've been in the past. There are certain missions that are simply not available at all because of something you've done in the past. Those are usually on a smaller scale. Is Conrad Verner alive or dead? [The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.

No Mac, The only difference is a paltry 100 Galactic Readiness points... nothing that a single multiplayer match couldn't fix...

Lurchibald:
You forgot http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/02/28/mass-effect-3-mac-walters/

Interviewer: I saved the Rachni in the first game, and there was a little tease about them in Mass Effect 2. How big of a repercussion do choices like that have in this game? Will get to play a mission that someone who killed the Rachni wouldn't get?
Mac Walters: The thing I will say about Mass Effect 3 is that the choices you've made previously, and the differences that those choices represent, are much bigger than they've been in the past. There are certain missions that are simply not available at all because of something you've done in the past. Those are usually on a smaller scale. Is Conrad Verner alive or dead? [The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.

No Mac, The only difference is a paltry 100 Galactic Readiness points... nothing that a single multiplayer match couldn't fix...

I actually had not seen this particular one before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I think its really cool that Forbes is talking about this, I always tended to think of them as a more upscale type publication, one that wouldn't bother with this type of thing, but they are taking it seriously and handling it wonderfully

notsosavagemessiah:
This is all irrelevant. If you don't like bioware's story, too bad. It's theirs, they wrote in such a way to leave it open for DLC while trying to wrap things up in a satisfying way. The truth is, this reaction would've happened no matter how good the ending was because it wasn't "their" ending. It wasn't how they saw it in their head. You that support this, need to get over the idea that somehow mass effect belongs to you. It does not. You are not the writers, you didn't put in the time to program the code. The only thing you did do, was buy and play. You didn't put any real work in, therefore, you are NOT entitled to the ability to change it.

Ah yes, more interpretations and existential angst.

1) They did not leave the story open of DLC. The way things end in ME3 changes the basic setup of the game world that DLC is not possible. Once the game ends you're basically dumped into a copy of the game the way it was right before the final confrontation. Every DLC that follows can only be structured as a pre-final battle prequel.

2) I'm sick and tired of hearing that there's no way to end the series in a way that can satisfy fans. It doesn't take much, just don't strand half your crew on an unidentified planet and have an epilogue that basically implies that spaceflight has not been re-established. Players spent their 3 games fighting for the state of the universe and everything in it. Forcing a fundamental change to that status quo for "art" reasons can be done in the first game of the series, as there's not much attachment yet. Doing it this late in the narrative is classic asshat syndrome. People develop attachments and a good idea of what they're fighting for.

3) Nobody cares who ME belongs to. This is a message that if they want us to buy future DLC they'd damn well give us a reason to care. The ending took away that reason. They're free to keep the ending as they see fit, but who will they have to sell their DLC to? You? Capitalism, Ho!

Tono Makt:
On one hand, it is absolutely insane, and utterly embarrassing for the gaming community with Forbes magazine is the best source for intelligent analysis of the Mass Effect 3 situation. The gaming community should be able to handle this one, and it's dropped the ball. Heck, it tied its hands behind its back and jumped back behind cover when the ball got dropped.

On the other hand, Forbes magazine is taking the time and effort to look at this issue seriously, and offer intelligent and reasonable advice! It's not just saying "You idiot kids. Shut up.", they're treating the fans as if the fans are the equivalent of any other consumer out there. This is awesome.

Paragraph 2 I agree with, paragraph 1 I don't.

We haven't dropped the ball at all, in fact, we're still holding it firmly in our greasy consumer hands. We're holding it so well that other developers have taken notice and Bioware have been embarrassed and gotten to work on a (hopefully) more conclusive ending. Forbes' involvement is an outsider view on things going on within, adding a new perspective on things and nothing more.

notsosavagemessiah:
This is all irrelevant. If you don't like bioware's story, too bad. It's theirs, they wrote in such a way to leave it open for DLC while trying to wrap things up in a satisfying way. The truth is, this reaction would've happened no matter how good the ending was because it wasn't "their" ending. It wasn't how they saw it in their head. You that support this, need to get over the idea that somehow mass effect belongs to you. It does not. You are not the writers, you didn't put in the time to program the code. The only thing you did do, was buy and play. You didn't put any real work in, therefore, you are NOT entitled to the ability to change it.

May I refer you to this video, Sir? Maybe then you'll at least start seeing eye-to-eye with all this displeasure; and take some understanding to the situation while you're at it, instead of telling us that the piece of shit ending is supposed to be satisfying.

This guy hits the nail on the head. He suggests we have 16 DIFFERENT endings, where if you play at keep Shepard alive, s/he lives. If you play to save the galaxy but want Shepard to die, it can happen. If you want the reapers to win, cool - it can happen too - this is the ending we should have had as it was the kind of ending we were led to believe we would get.

...and for anyone who fancies a laugh about the ending, Family Guy made a joke about the very same kind of ending back before ME2 was even out.

EDIT: Yay! Post 600! I would've preferred it to be more science-y though, but I'll take what I can get!

Tono Makt:
On one hand, it is absolutely insane, and utterly embarrassing for the gaming community with Forbes magazine is the best source for intelligent analysis of the Mass Effect 3 situation. The gaming community should be able to handle this one, and it's dropped the ball. Heck, it tied its hands behind its back and jumped back behind cover when the ball got dropped.

On the other hand, Forbes magazine is taking the time and effort to look at this issue seriously, and offer intelligent and reasonable advice! It's not just saying "You idiot kids. Shut up.", they're treating the fans as if the fans are the equivalent of any other consumer out there. This is awesome.

EA doesn't have the kind of money (or Foresight) to buy out Forbes. Even Yatzhee backed down from the ME3 ending

Whenever I see this kind of thread and people are throwing shit left and right, one thing that stands out is the constant accusation of 'what did you expect, a happy ending?' and it reminds me of when God shows himself on South Park....

....and he looks like a Bunyip. Then he asks them "What did you expect, my child?" and Randy goes "Well, something, but not that". For most of us, the ending isn't bad because we didn't end in the most cliche manner ever, but because it just didn't seem to fit with everything else and appeared to make our actions through the game largely meaningless.

Shepard dying, basically expected. Earth ravaged, went without saying. The galaxy at large in various states of fucked, yeah that makes sense. Counterbalanced by a reknewed feeling of brotherhood between the races, awesome. The Geth and Quarians making peace to rebuild Rannoch, the Krogan being cured and elevating themselves socially would have been what I expected.

I did not expect a hologram of the game's most emotionally manipulative character to basically say 'pick your preferred flavour of shit'. And even then, an easy way to take some of the sting out of that would have been for the hologram to be of Saren.

Strain42:

Savagezion:

Smeggs:

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality.

Open your eyes. Look up to the skies and seeeeeeeeeee

I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy

Edit: crap ninja'd

wintercoat:

The real message is twofold. First, that a developer has to live up to fan expectations, or else its reputation will be tarnished. The second is much more hopeful - the idea that in an age of social media, it might just have a chance to repair the damage."

This. This. Oh so much this! A million times this! This is the best summation of what I've been trying to get across to people, but could never adequately say.

They don't even have to live up to the fans expectations, at least not the super lofty ones. They just have to live up to their own promises. You'd think they know that since it's come up in their games before.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked