they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.
So to sum up the Bomb Crew's feelings on the ME 3 ending
Fairly sure they called the people who wanted the ending changed 'whiners', not those who just disliked it.
@Rasmoss said:
they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.
They disliked the ending that Bioware created for ME3 but they hated even more editing the ending because changing it after the fact is worse.
But Brad pretty much considers the extended ending required viewing and "couldn't believe" what was left out originally.@Rasmoss said:
they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.They disliked the ending that Bioware created for ME3 but they hated even more editing the ending because changing it after the fact is worse.
Do you know what the world needs more of? Mass Effect 3 ending discussion.
@Rasmoss said:
they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.
Because here's the thing: whining is a long, irritating, and fruitless thing. To whine, one must bleat the same note over an extended period.
The "entire gaming press," (which is inaccurate, but the point is duly received) did not do this. Giant Bomb did not do this. They made a single affirmative note about the issue, dissected the respective failures of the ending, and moved on. Jeff even said it isn't the worst thing about the game, a statement that exists in stark relief to the vocal throng of internet rebels decrying for weeks how catastrophic a mishap the ending was.
@HistoryInRust said:
@Rasmoss said:
they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.Because here's the thing: whining is a long, irritating, and fruitless thing. To whine, one must bleat the same note over an extended period.
The "entire gaming press," (which is inaccurate, but the point is duly received) did not do this. Giant Bomb did not do this. They made a single affirmative note about the issue, dissected the respective failures of the ending, and moved on. Jeff even said it isn't the worst thing about the game, a statement that exists in stark relief to the vocal throng of internet rebels decrying for weeks how catastrophic a mishap the ending was.
The Bombers weren't the worst, that is certainly true, but listening to gaming press articles and podcasts at the time, there was STRONG reaction to what was seen as BioWare buckling to whiny fan pressure.
That is in contrast to Brad saying that the original ending is "abysmal" and that everyone should have experienced it the way he did, that Patrick now feels "insulted" that this better version of the game exists that he did not get to play, and that it seems to be the general consensus of the cast.
The long and the short of it: The complainers were right, and BioWare improved the game by changing it. I just think a bit of fair dues are in order.
This is incorrect. They're saying it's a bad ending. If any comments were made regarding "whining", I'm pretty sure they were directed at people talking about suing Bioware/EA, demanding a changed ending, and generally behaving like children. Not at people saying they disliked the ending.
Look, I fucking hated the ending to ME3 too. I get it. All I got from that is that it was a bad game. To ask Bioware for a total overhaul was, is and will always be a pathetic display of false entitlement.
Can we please, as a people, fucking deal with it and move on?
If anything, the Bombcast dispelled Arthur Gies' theory that the people who didn't like the ending were an acidic minority. They managed to make an argument (thanks mostly to Brad's unique experience with the game) that Bioware royally bungled the ending without sounding like entitled dicks.
@Grimace said:
If anything, the Bombcast dispelled Arthur Gies' theory that the people who didn't like the ending were an acidic minority. They managed to make an argument (thanks mostly to Brad's unique experience with the game) that Bioware royally bungled the ending without sounding like entitled dicks.
But that's the thing, most people weren't sounding like entitled dicks, that was just a vocal minority that became seen as the voice of the complainers, and therefore it was never taking seriously except for by Bioware themselves. A lot of the criticism was measured and intelligent. That just never really got to be the story back then.
@Rasmoss said:
@Grimace said:
If anything, the Bombcast dispelled Arthur Gies' theory that the people who didn't like the ending were an acidic minority. They managed to make an argument (thanks mostly to Brad's unique experience with the game) that Bioware royally bungled the ending without sounding like entitled dicks.
But that's the thing, most people weren't sounding like entitled dicks, that was just a vocal minority that became seen as the voice of the complainers, and therefore it was never taking seriously except for by Bioware themselves. A lot of the criticism was measured and intelligent. That just never really got to be the story back then.
as someone who didn't like the ending but didn't really care one way or they other, they kind of sounded like huge entitled jerks.
@Animasta said:
@Rasmoss said:
@Grimace said:
If anything, the Bombcast dispelled Arthur Gies' theory that the people who didn't like the ending were an acidic minority. They managed to make an argument (thanks mostly to Brad's unique experience with the game) that Bioware royally bungled the ending without sounding like entitled dicks.
But that's the thing, most people weren't sounding like entitled dicks, that was just a vocal minority that became seen as the voice of the complainers, and therefore it was never taking seriously except for by Bioware themselves. A lot of the criticism was measured and intelligent. That just never really got to be the story back then.
as someone who didn't like the ending but didn't really care one way or they other, they kind of sounded like huge entitled jerks.
Some people, sure. But like I said, there was plenty of more measured response. And it should also be seen in this context: Pretty much NONE of the critics had pointed out the flaws of the ending and the game has a 93 metacritic rating. A lot of people probably didn't feel that the critics were doing there jobs and were feeling frustrated.
Mass Effect is effectively dead following that whole mess. I sometimes wonder why they bothered going back and trying to fix it in the first place.
The admittance of their doing wrong was a completely stupid move on their part. They basically waved a white flag to their needy, spoiled fans and in the process, lost all the respect they had earned from making the series in the first place. By giving into the fans demands for a better ending (which they still failed to deliver anyway) they exposed themselves as a company that didn't want to take risks and displease anybody rather than remaining a competent, well-respected developer who knew exactly what they were doing and where they were going next. They let go of the wheel and allowed EA to step in and completely manipulate them without putting up too much of a fight.
Now that Bioware is pretty much disbanded in every way other than its namesake...Mass Effect is dead.
NEXT.
@Rasmoss said:
@Animasta said:
@Rasmoss said:
@Grimace said:
If anything, the Bombcast dispelled Arthur Gies' theory that the people who didn't like the ending were an acidic minority. They managed to make an argument (thanks mostly to Brad's unique experience with the game) that Bioware royally bungled the ending without sounding like entitled dicks.
But that's the thing, most people weren't sounding like entitled dicks, that was just a vocal minority that became seen as the voice of the complainers, and therefore it was never taking seriously except for by Bioware themselves. A lot of the criticism was measured and intelligent. That just never really got to be the story back then.
as someone who didn't like the ending but didn't really care one way or they other, they kind of sounded like huge entitled jerks.
Some people, sure. But like I said, there was plenty of more measured response. And it should also be seen in this context: Pretty much NONE of the critics had pointed out the flaws of the ending and the game has a 93 metacritic rating. A lot of people probably didn't feel that the critics were doing there jobs and were feeling frustrated.
I would agree with this but I don't think that's totally where it was aimed, at reviewers.
At that point where people who played 1 and 2 not going to play 3 anyways?
Ultimately I don't care. I get why everyone is pissed. Saying it needed to be changed and all that and how it was is just a mess though, then with the DLC additions to the plot...
It was indefensibly bungled. I never played the game with From Ashes. The whole thing was handled about as badly as it could be so I'm all for Bioware getting shit on really.
One of the big things to me is that Bioware games have had good endings before. Dragon Age had a perfectly good ending that was mostly straight forward and it took your choices into account. Yes, yes, three games and all that but they didn't really even need to have more factor in than say Dragon Age did. Dragon Age acknowledged all your choices just fine. They just choose the wrong route to go and then bungled the execution as well.
Frankly I don't think anyone believed that Bioware would change the ending of ME3, but by vocalizing their displeasure at it I imagine the hope was by many people that future Bioware titles might avoid the same degree of hubris when it comes to outright narrative dissonance. It's important to remember that the last Bioware title before ME3 was DA2, which didn't exactly set the world a light in terms of response and had something of an awkward ending to it (though nowhere near as egregious as ME3 in my view).
With respect to the outcry I think it's a situation of 'Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you' in effect with regard to fan reaction. Albeit Mass Effect & Dragon Age are actually different development teams within Bioware inevitably it was going to be a case that most people don't see/understand that, and therefore it was always going to be the case that the ME3 team really needed to bring the ship in safely with the games ending.
As regards the overall negative response by large swathes of the gaming press to the fan reaction, well that was a bit of an eye opener tbh. I don't hold with the idea that people were paid off etc (the rabbit hole of 'industry' corruption is for the conspiracy theorists) more that there's a disconnect between what the audience of a Bioware title value (cohesive narrative) Vs what most game reviewers value (game play). After all the former likely have played and replayed the games multiple times, where as for the latter it's just another game they need to review before moving onto the next title. I think certain 'journalists' felt the need to try and validate their assessments in light of the furore and rather tragically did themselves no favours publicly by snapping at the fans, Vs questioning their own approach to game assessment (storyline matters to people).
Haven't played either the EC or the DLC, though I'm tempted to replay ME3 once the final DLC is out to see what they changed/retconned. I'm not holding out for much in terms of the ending being any more palatable in truth (you can stick a hat on a pig, but it's still a pig at the end of the day) but I'm interested to see the differences.
That Bioware chose to address the ending criticism deserves some props (they weren't obliged to in truth), though obviously their motivation was to win back favour with the disenfranchised. to some degree. The positives from this are likely to be a lot more focus placed on good storytelling with future Bioware titles. EA management are likely acutely aware that another ME3 will sink Bioware reputation entirely, so DA3 is going to need to deliver on all fronts and I expect they'll give it the requisite time to achieve that.
@ArtisanBreads said:
@Rasmoss said:
@Animasta said:
@Rasmoss said:
@Grimace said:
If anything, the Bombcast dispelled Arthur Gies' theory that the people who didn't like the ending were an acidic minority. They managed to make an argument (thanks mostly to Brad's unique experience with the game) that Bioware royally bungled the ending without sounding like entitled dicks.
But that's the thing, most people weren't sounding like entitled dicks, that was just a vocal minority that became seen as the voice of the complainers, and therefore it was never taking seriously except for by Bioware themselves. A lot of the criticism was measured and intelligent. That just never really got to be the story back then.
as someone who didn't like the ending but didn't really care one way or they other, they kind of sounded like huge entitled jerks.
Some people, sure. But like I said, there was plenty of more measured response. And it should also be seen in this context: Pretty much NONE of the critics had pointed out the flaws of the ending and the game has a 93 metacritic rating. A lot of people probably didn't feel that the critics were doing there jobs and were feeling frustrated.
I would agree with this but I don't think that's totally where it was aimed, at reviewers.
At that point where people who played 1 and 2 not going to play 3 anyways?
Ultimately I don't care. I get why everyone is pissed. Saying it needed to be changed and all that and how it was is just a mess though, then with the DLC additions to the plot...
It was indefensibly bungled. I never played the game with From Ashes. The whole thing was handled about as badly as it could be so I'm all for Bioware getting shit on really.
One of the big things to me is that Bioware games have had good endings before. Dragon Age had a perfectly good ending that was mostly straight forward and it took your choices into account. Yes, yes, three games and all that but they didn't really even need to have more factor in than say Dragon Age did. Dragon Age acknowledged all your choices just fine. They just choose the wrong route to go and then bungled the execution as well.
As suggested on the Bombcast it seems like more of a case of EA inteference, and that monetary concerns sold Mass Effect down the river. That's speculation of course, but as you say, Bioware have a history of good endings, ME1 and KOTOR also come to mind.
@Kadayi said:
Frankly I don't think anyone believed that Bioware would change the ending of ME3, but by vocalizing their displeasure at it I imagine the hope was by many people that future Bioware titles might avoid the same degree of hubris when it comes to outright narrative dissonance. It's important to remember that the last Bioware title before ME3 was DA2, which didn't exactly set the world a light in terms of response and had something of an awkward ending to it (though nowhere near as egregious as ME3 in my view).
With respect to the outcry I think it's a situation of 'Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you' in effect with regard to fan reaction. Albeit Mass Effect & Dragon Age are actually different development teams within Bioware inevitably it was going to be a case that most people don't see/understand that, and therefore it was always going to be the case that the ME3 team really needed to bring the ship in safely with the games ending.
As regards the overall negative response by large swathes of the gaming press to the fan reaction, well that was a bit of an eye opener tbh. I don't hold with the idea that people were paid off etc (the rabbit hole of 'industry' corruption is for the conspiracy theorists) more that there's a disconnect between what the audience of a Bioware title value (cohesive narrative) Vs what most game reviewers value (game play). After all the former likely have played and replayed the games multiple times, where as for the latter it's just another game they need to review before moving onto the next title. I think certain 'journalists' felt the need to try and validate their assessments in light of the furore and rather tragically did themselves no favours publicly by snapping at the fans, Vs questioning their approach.
Haven't played either the EC or the DLC, though I'm tempted to replay ME3 once the final DLC is out to see what they changed/retconned. I'm not holding out for much in terms of the ending being any more palatable in truth (you can stick a hat on a pig, but it's still a pig at the end of the day) but I'm interested to see the differences.
That Bioware chose to address the ending criticism deserves some props (they weren't obliged to in truth), though obviously their motivation was to win back favour with the disenfranchised. to some degree. The positives from this are likely to be a lot more focus placed on good storytelling with future Bioware titles. EA management are likely acutely aware that another ME3 will sink Bioware reputation entirely, so DA3 is going to need to deliver on all fronts and I expect they'll give it the requisite time to achieve that.
Thank you for a thoughtful response. I agree with what you say, and I'm also not saying that reviewers are paid off or anything. I would just like to see some introspection after the fact that maybe reviewers didn't handle the situation perfectly.
I understand and agree with exactly where you're coming from, OP. I felt the same way as soon as I listened to the bombcast discussion. I feel simultaneously vindicated, and also a little angry that people who were making perfectly legitimate and intelligent criticism of the game were left out in the cold, only to see places like Giant Bomb ride up on their horse 9 months later wondering how they missed all the action.
@Rasmoss said:
As suggested on the Bombcast it seems like more of a case of EA inteference, and that monetary concerns sold Mass Effect down the river. That's speculation of course, but as you say, Bioware have a history of good endings, ME1 and KOTOR also come to mind.
I'm not usually one to go on the EA witch hunt with everyone else but it certainly could be possible. However, I think going after EA so much cuts Bioware too much of a pass. As I said, I could totally see what is there in the ending having the factor of say not enough time because of EA pressure to release (which could explain how bare bones the ending feels, even with its "extended cut"), but on a basic level it isn't quality or thought out. What is there could have been done better, regardless of EA's position. So to me there is no way it is all EAs fault at least, and I doubt we will ever learn to what extend it could be said to really be EA's fault. Bioware fucked up in some capacity (and quite a major one for an RPG. Have to do a decent ending).
@Kadayi said:
Haven't played either the EC or the DLC, though I'm tempted to replay ME3 once the final DLC is out to see what they changed/retconned. I'm not holding out for much in terms of the ending being any more palatable in truth (you can stick a hat on a pig, but it's still a pig at the end of the day) but I'm interested to see the differences.
That Bioware chose to address the ending criticism deserves some props (they weren't obliged to in truth), though obviously their motivation was to win back favour with the disenfranchised. to some degree. The positives from this are likely to be a lot more focus placed on good storytelling with future Bioware titles. EA management are likely acutely aware that another ME3 will sink Bioware reputation entirely, so DA3 is going to need to deliver on all fronts and I expect they'll give it the requisite time to achieve that.
The fact that we have to delve so much into the inside politics and "how the sausage is made" aspect of the game when considering how it ended and what was added, etc. leaves it irreparably damaged. It is so hard to defend that (not saying you are btw, just pointing that out).
@Rasmoss said:
As suggested on the Bombcast it seems like more of a case of EA inteference, and that monetary concerns sold Mass Effect down the river. That's speculation of course, but as you say, Bioware have a history of good endings, ME1 and KOTOR also come to mind.
This 'Blame EA' thing robs Bioware writers of ultimate responsibility for their works. Plain truth of the matter is (according to TLDoME app), EA actually gave Bioware more time to finish ME3. Certainly there's some egregious shit in ME3 like the inclusion of Diane 'IGN' Allers and the Day one DLC that stinks of EA marketing interference, but this idea that the 'suits' really fucked up the ending is cutting Hudson & Walters a break that they don't derserve. They wrote the ending, they dropped the ball. They don't deserve a free pass because it's the thing to hate on their publisher.
@Hugh_Jazz said:
Didn't Brad say that the Leviathong DLC was required viewing, not necessarily the revised ending? It seemed to me like they didn't agree with a lot of things that were changed in the Extended Cut.
I'ts not so much that they didn't agree, but the fact that whole things were reconnected proved Bioware had no artistic integrity behind their choices and ultimately had no idea what they were doing by the end of that game.
And that DLC could be seen to be a revised ending in that it justifies and sets up the ending so it isn't completely out of left field. So it's kind of both, either way.
I don't know if you've played or read the plot of the DLC, but if you do it makes sense to be both of those things. And if you want to be negative, yes I could see it being a total retcon to justify the ending more rather than something that was planned for the plot before.
also: "Leviathong" hahahha
@Kadayi said:
@Rasmoss said:
As suggested on the Bombcast it seems like more of a case of EA inteference, and that monetary concerns sold Mass Effect down the river. That's speculation of course, but as you say, Bioware have a history of good endings, ME1 and KOTOR also come to mind.
This 'Blame EA' thing robs Bioware writers of ultimate responsibility for their works. Plain truth of the matter is (according to TLDoME app), EA actually gave Bioware more time to finish ME3. Certainly there's some egregious shit in ME3 like the inclusion of Diane 'IGN' Allers and the Day one DLC that stinks of EA marketing interference, but this idea that the 'suits' really fucked up the ending is cutting Hudson & Walters a break that they don't derserve. They wrote the ending, they dropped the ball. They don't deserve a free pass because it's the thing to hate on their publisher.
Agreed, however I think they gave them 18 months instead of 12. Which could very well have been a drop in the bucket for the tail end of the Mass Effect franchise.
But the could'ves and might'ves don't take away from the ending, and the ending really does kind of tarnish the rest of the franchise. Which is a damn shame.
@Rasmoss said:
Thank you for a thoughtful response. I agree with what you say, and I'm also not saying that reviewers are paid off or anything. I would just like to see some introspection after the fact that maybe reviewers didn't handle the situation perfectly.
Well that Brad called shenanigans on the state the game shipped Vs the extended cut and DLC I see as a positive move (though it was amusing to see 'luminaries' like Arthur Gies trying to convince him on twitter that it's all fan overreaction). With regards to game reviews I do feel we're in a bit of an awkward transition state where in story is increasingly coming to the fore in terms of what players value (especially across franchises) but the emphasis with reviews is still very much on technical/gameplay issues with story line being valued as an afterthought. Generally most AAA titles are technically well made so it's not really a surprise that most of them rate high overall under such a system. As long as the review emphasis is towards the latter Vs the former then games with mediocre narratives will continue to garner high scores (I'm looking at you MW2 specifically)
The big question really is whether the gaming press we currently have are capable of transitioning towards acknowledging the increasing importance of story/cohesive narrative in (certain) games, and more importantly being capable of assessing it (something I'm not entirely convinced about). I'm buoyed by TWD winning the VGA GoTY awards (a positive step in my view) though I'm disheartened by certain sectors of the gaming press actually questioning whether it's in fact a game.
@ArtisanBreads said:
The fact that we have to delve so much into the inside politics and "how the sausage is made" aspect of the game when considering how it ended and what was added, etc. leaves it irreparably damaged. It is so hard to defend that (not saying you are btw, just pointing that out).
I don't disagree. Personally I find the whole saga quite fascinating in terms of how everything played out (press reviews, fan reaction, Biowares response, the presses response, etc, etc). I guess now I'm more into getting the DLC down the road (when everything ME3 is released) and playing through the EC myself (I've avoided youtubing it) so I can get the full picture. I don't expect my opinions will change (hat on a pig), or that the ending will be made any more palatable but I'm kind of in it now in order to round things out for my own satisfaction. Like quite a few people I know I'd of been more than happy with the ending Vinny mentioned of where the game ends in the control room with Anderson & TIM, and you (likely) bleed out having engaged the Catayst. I've seen a few youtubes of that Fan ending and frankly they do the trick.
@doosmacleod said:
Agreed, however I think they gave them 18 months instead of 12. Which could very well have been a drop in the bucket for the tail end of the Mass Effect franchise.
But the could'ves and might'ves don't take away from the ending, and the ending really does kind of tarnish the rest of the franchise. Which is a damn shame.
I guess I just don't hold to this idea that EA dictated the games release schedule Vs asking Hudson 'how long do you need to bring this in?' and Hudson coming off the success of ME2 grossly underestimating the challenge he'd set both himself and the ME team and spectacularly fumbling the ball in extra time Vs winning the game and getting to fuck the cheerleader. I agree that the ending has tarnished the franchise, and I must admit I'm amazed that they're even attempting a further game. A Prequel seems like a colossal waste of time (who cares...it all goes to hell eventually) and a post catalyst game that doesn't undermine the ending(s) of ME3 in some manner seems kind of inconceivable.
@GunstarRed said:
Do you know what the world needs more of? Mass Effect 3 ending discussion.
I respectfully disagree.
@Baillie said:
@Kadayi MW2 had a good story along with some very exciting gameplay moments. Please stop beating a dead horse which is very much alive.
I agree fullheartedly. Too often people will pull a Modern Warfare comparison out of their asses as some sort of watershed moment for when we all sold out to the devil or something. Modern Warfare 2 was a fine game. I don't know if I can necessarily agree about the story as I don't remember really caring about what was going on but the entire campaign was damn good cinematic fun that in all honesty I've yet to experience in any other first person shooter to date. Quite recently in a "conversation" I was having someone was trying to compare The Walking Dead to Modern Warfare 2 - I mean c'mon people.
@Baillie said:
@Kadayi MW2 had a good story along with some very exciting gameplay moments. Please stop beating a dead horse which is very much alive.
I'm sorry but the 'No Russian' level is an insult to peoples intelligence. The entire premise that Makarov effectively and personally participates in an airport massacre in order to leave your corpse at the scene of the crime beggars belief. It means the man knew that he would personally emerge from the entire event unscathed before going head to head with innumerable response units and that you wouldn't turn your gun on him yourself, it's just plain ludicrous on a number of levels.
Sure the MP was fun, but let's at least have the balls to acknowledge that the SP story-line was BS. MW1 was high stakes stuff, but it at least possessed some semblance of possibility when it came to story-line.
The point though is to emphasize the fact that this kind of thing isn't something that gets much truck when it comes to reviews. By on large story-line and narrative coherence isn't something that's given much emphasis by reviewers (The plot makes even the later seasons of 24 look like Shakespeare). The average gamer is mid thirties now, isn't it about time we started getting games that treat us according?
Wish they didn't change the ending I was fine with it, it was an ending to an amazing journey. Them backpeddling for all the whiners by changing the story really made me lose respect for Bioware.
@Rasmoss said:
they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.
I don't remember them ever saying they liked the ending. What started the whole "entitlement debacle" was everyone freaking out wayyyy out of proportion and making demands and calling Bioware sell outs and sending them rainbow colored cup cakes (that last one was at least pretty clever).
The issue brought up on the bombcast was that the series main writer was moved on to TOR, thus leaving others to finish it off. But of course, we can't be sure it was an EA decision.@Kadayi said:
@Rasmoss said:
As suggested on the Bombcast it seems like more of a case of EA inteference, and that monetary concerns sold Mass Effect down the river. That's speculation of course, but as you say, Bioware have a history of good endings, ME1 and KOTOR also come to mind.
This 'Blame EA' thing robs Bioware writers of ultimate responsibility for their works. Plain truth of the matter is (according to TLDoME app), EA actually gave Bioware more time to finish ME3. Certainly there's some egregious shit in ME3 like the inclusion of Diane 'IGN' Allers and the Day one DLC that stinks of EA marketing interference, but this idea that the 'suits' really fucked up the ending is cutting Hudson & Walters a break that they don't derserve. They wrote the ending, they dropped the ball. They don't deserve a free pass because it's the thing to hate on their publisher.
Agreed, however I think they gave them 18 months instead of 12. Which could very well have been a drop in the bucket for the tail end of the Mass Effect franchise.
But the could'ves and might'ves don't take away from the ending, and the ending really does kind of tarnish the rest of the franchise. Which is a damn shame.
@SlashDance said:
@Rasmoss said:
they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.I don't remember them ever saying they liked the ending. What started the whole "entitlement debacle" was everyone freaking out wayyyy out of proportion and making demands and calling Bioware sell outs and sending them rainbow colored cup cakes (that last one was at least pretty clever).
And throwing out sexist insults and comments on a female writer's appearance and nitpicking every piece of information they could find on her while calling her Hamburger Helper as if she was the cause of everything they disliked in the game. Do I think she's a bad writer? Probably, although she was far from the only problem, and didn't deserve the attention she got; but that is a perfect example of the entitled childish inaccurate rage leveled after ME3's release.
@Kadayi said:
I guess I just don't hold to this idea that EA dictated the games release schedule Vs asking Hudson 'how long do you need to bring this in?' and Hudson coming off the success of ME2 grossly underestimating the challenge he'd set both himself and the ME team and spectacularly fumbling the ball in extra time Vs winning the game and getting to fuck the cheerleader. I agree that the ending has tarnished the franchise, and I must admit I'm amazed that they're even attempting a further game. A Prequel seems like a colossal waste of time (who cares...it all goes to hell eventually) and a post catalyst game that doesn't undermine the ending(s) of ME3 in some manner seems kind of inconceivable.
Well, it's inarguable that they went from longer production schedules on the first Mass Effect and Dragon Age (and all the games before it) to 1-2 year production schedules for the ME and DA sequels, which lines up with when EA took control, and that EA is a company that seems to have an edict of releasing games yearly or every other year to maximum profit potential at the expense of quality, since they saw it working so well for Activision. Likewise, they also started cutting out significant story content and characters and selling them for DLC around that time, as well as Pre-Order bonuses, cross-promotional items, and mid-game missions after EA purchased them (before Dragon Age's release). Not to mention the "dudebro" marketing angles and their efforts to do CoD numbers around that time. Remember Dragon Age's "This is the new shit?"
The biggest attitude switch was on the From Ashes day one DLC. There was a lot of bitching from people about that and it being day 1 but a lot of the gaming press were defending it. I remember them or at least Jeff defending it on the Bombcast with the usual excuses of they make that stuff after the game has gone to cert, clearly they didn't and it was either cut or just a major part that was designed out of the game to be sold extra if you didn't get CE. Now they are bitching about it like all the players were.
The "self entitled whiners" were the people who felt they had the right to demand Bioware do something about the ending, some people even going so far as to file lawsuits. There's nothing "entitled" about disliking and critisizing the product (exactly what Giant Bomb did on the podcast), entitled is demanding some sort of retribution for your displeasure. Giant Bomb's position doesn't seem to have shifted at all, they just finally had the leeway to talk specifics about it where they couldn't before. This seems really stupid.
@Wrighteous86 said:
@bushpusherr said:
This seems really stupid.
@Elktap said:
The biggest attitude switch was on the From Ashes day one DLC. There was a lot of bitching from people about that and it being day 1 but a lot of the gaming press were defending it. I remember them or at least Jeff defending it on the Bombcast with the usual excuses of they make that stuff after the game has gone to cert, clearly they didn't and it was either cut or just a major part that was designed out of the game to be sold extra if you didn't get CE. Now they are bitching about it like all the players were.
Jeff also said that he was only coming to that opinion as someone who played the game without that content. He said that it didn't feel like it was "cut out". There wasn't a Javik shaped hole in the game, essentially. So... you're misrepresenting his position. All he said is that he didn't "notice" something was missing. Knowing what he knows now, he probably thinks it would've improved on areas of the game that needed work, but there was no way he could've known that before release.
You guys just want to be validated that you're all "so much smarter" than video game journalists. For the most part, Giant Bomb handled the ME3 controversy well. Get over it.
@bushpusherr said:
The "self entitled whiners" were the people who felt they had the right to demand Bioware do something about the ending, some people even going so far as to file lawsuits. There's nothing "entitled" about disliking and critisizing the product (exactly what Giant Bomb did on the podcast), entitled is demanding some sort of retribution for your displeasure. Giant Bomb's position doesn't seem to have shifted at all, they just finally had the leeway to talk specifics about it where they couldn't before. This seems really stupid.
This is blatantly false. The GB'ers never used words like "insulting", "unacceptable", "abysmal" in their original discussion in regards to the ending. They werent' the worst about it, but the narrative that formed around people having issues with the ending painted a wrong picture.
@Rasmoss said:
The issue brought up on the bombcast was that the series main writer was moved on to TOR, thus leaving others to finish it off. But of course, we can't be sure it was an EA decision.
Drew Karpyshyn and Mac Walters worked together as the leads on ME2. Karpyshyn went off to TOR, but Walters stayed on to work through ME3, and lets not forget that there's a lot of other writers involved as well. The scuttlebutt is that Hudson & Walters essentially worked through the ending alone without felllow writer peer review (unlike every other ME3 storyline) and that's why there's the abrupt drop off in quality ( ME3 has some outstanding moments after all).
@Rasmoss said:
@bushpusherr said:
The "self entitled whiners" were the people who felt they had the right to demand Bioware do something about the ending, some people even going so far as to file lawsuits. There's nothing "entitled" about disliking and critisizing the product (exactly what Giant Bomb did on the podcast), entitled is demanding some sort of retribution for your displeasure. Giant Bomb's position doesn't seem to have shifted at all, they just finally had the leeway to talk specifics about it where they couldn't before. This seems really stupid.
This is blatantly false. The GB'ers never used words like "insulting", "unacceptable", "abysmal" in their original discussion. They werent' the worst about it, but the narrative that formed around people having issues with the ending painted a wrong picture.
Because after seeing what was left out that could have and should have been part of the game makes it more clear? You're really reaching dude. The things that have been added to the game add necessary context to the ending that fixes some (but not all) of the problems. They always acknowledged there were problems. Now that they see there were SOLUTIONS to those problems that were being withheld, yes, it's insulting and unacceptable.
The ending was shit. They called it shit at the time. It became insulting when they tried to sell the parts of the game that improved it, and offer them at a later date. At this point, it's clear that the DLC should have been included in the main game and the game's release likely delayed. At the time, it looked like they just made a shitty game full of plot holes. With hindsight and context, the situation looks even worse.
EDIT: And NONE OF THAT justifies the way the community responded. They absolutely were entitled jerks. Despite what you say "most" of the vocal criticism was calling for a change in the ending, was attacking and insulting a female writer and her appearance, was screaming and crying and creating a shitload of threads. Most people thought the Star Wars Prequels were shit. Do you still hear people screaming about how someone should go back and fix them? Would that have been acceptable? Harrassing George Lucas and mocking women on his staff and calling for his head unless he made Star Wars the way you wanted it? Most people wanted Lucas away from the franchise, or to leave well enough alone, but anyone that told him to go back and fix his movies because he OWES you, anyone that threatened him with a lawsuit (like they did for ME3, as frivolous and ignorant as that is) would be an entitled child.
They are human, not robots. They are ruled by emotions, not pure logic. If you are looking for flaws in their thinking then I can go into any Quicklook and find at least ten things to bring up. But the cool thing about this site is that they are so forthcoming about their thoughts, and I wouldn't argue with my friends if they called someone whinny then a year later agreed with them, time changes your thoughts.
Now Im not saying I know Brad or Patrick or the others like friends. I know nothing about them, and do not presume to. But I don't think its fair to apply a logic filter to their opinions. In a review, ok, yes. In game of the year, maybe, maybe. But not on a candied, unedited discussion.
@Wrighteous86 said:
Well, it's inarguable that they went from longer production schedules on the first Mass Effect and Dragon Age (and all the games before it) to 1-2 year production schedules for the ME and DA sequels, which lines up with when EA took control, and that EA is a company that seems to have an edict of releasing games yearly or every other year to maximum profit potential at the expense of quality, since they saw it working so well for Activision. Likewise, they also started cutting out significant story content and characters and selling them for DLC around that time, as well as Pre-Order bonuses, cross-promotional items, and mid-game missions after EA purchased them (before Dragon Age's release). Not to mention the "dudebro" marketing angles and their efforts to do CoD numbers around that time. Remember Dragon Age's "This is the new shit?"
The release time on any new game is always going to be longer than that of any sequel because a large portion of the development time is dedicated to figuring out exactly what it is that you're intending to make, figuring out the technology as well as the important task of world building your games universe. ME2 is by far the strongest game in the series and that was carried out on EAs watch. I'm all for apportioning blame here, but saying 'it's all EAs fault' when it comes to the games narrative flaws is hokum I'm afraid.
@Wrighteous86 said:
The ending was shit. They called it shit at the time. It became insulting when they tried to sell the parts of the game that improved it, and offer them at a later date. At this point, it's clear that the DLC should have been included in the main game and the game's release likely delayed. At the time, it looked like they just made a shitty game full of plot holes. With hindsight and context, the situation looks even worse.
Leviathan and Omega are not 'cut content' . They've clearly been added/worked on since the game was released given they address post release concerns.
@Wrighteous86 said:
@Rasmoss said:
@bushpusherr said:
The "self entitled whiners" were the people who felt they had the right to demand Bioware do something about the ending, some people even going so far as to file lawsuits. There's nothing "entitled" about disliking and critisizing the product (exactly what Giant Bomb did on the podcast), entitled is demanding some sort of retribution for your displeasure. Giant Bomb's position doesn't seem to have shifted at all, they just finally had the leeway to talk specifics about it where they couldn't before. This seems really stupid.
This is blatantly false. The GB'ers never used words like "insulting", "unacceptable", "abysmal" in their original discussion. They werent' the worst about it, but the narrative that formed around people having issues with the ending painted a wrong picture.
Because after seeing what was left out that could have and should have been part of the game makes it more clear? You're really reaching dude. The things that have been added to the game add necessary context to the ending that fixes some (but not all) of the problems. They always acknowledged there were problems. Now that they see there were SOLUTIONS to those problems that were being withheld, yes, it's insulting and unacceptable.
The ending was shit. They called it shit at the time. It became insulting when they tried to sell the parts of the game that improved it, or offer it at a later date. At this point, it's clear that the DLC should have been included in the main game and the game's release likely delayed. At the time, it looked like they just made a shitty game full of plot holes. With hindsight and context, the situation looks even worse.
Whatever dude. That's just accepting all the premises, but refusing to accept the conclusion. When you accept that the amended ending and dlc make the experience acceptable, you are saying that the original ending was unacceptable. And no, they didn't call the ending shit at the time in so many words. I don't have a big issue with the cast about this, they were better about it than most, but it would have been more honest to recognise that they've changed their stance somewhat.
@Grimace said:
If anything, the Bombcast dispelled Arthur Gies' theory that the people who didn't like the ending were an acidic minority. They managed to make an argument (thanks mostly to Brad's unique experience with the game) that Bioware royally bungled the ending without sounding like entitled dicks.
Well, Gies is also an idiot, so that doesn't surprise me.
They were disappointed but they didn't go on the internet on a hate campaign against Bioware and EA for months.
@Wrighteous86 said:
Jeff also said that he was only coming to that opinion as someone who played the game without that content. He said that it didn't feel like it was "cut out". There wasn't a Javik shaped hole in the game, essentially. So... you're misrepresenting his position. All he said is that he didn't "notice" something was missing. Knowing what he knows now, he probably thinks it would've improved on areas of the game that needed work, but there was no way he could've known that before release.
You guys just want to be validated that you're all "so much smarter" than video game journalists. For the most part, Giant Bomb handled the ME3 controversy well. Get over it.
I was more talking about the general consensus of the crew. Back when ME3 was released they all thought it was OK and people were whining for no good reason but once Brad started playing the attitude from most of them has shifted including Jeff to some extent. Their stance now backs up most of what people were complaining about when the game was released, but back then they didn't really have that support most of the press were saying that the way the DLC was done was fine and pretty much shot down everyone that was complaining saying they were whiners that had no good reason.
@Elktap said:
@Wrighteous86 said:
Jeff also said that he was only coming to that opinion as someone who played the game without that content. He said that it didn't feel like it was "cut out". There wasn't a Javik shaped hole in the game, essentially. So... you're misrepresenting his position. All he said is that he didn't "notice" something was missing. Knowing what he knows now, he probably thinks it would've improved on areas of the game that needed work, but there was no way he could've known that before release.
You guys just want to be validated that you're all "so much smarter" than video game journalists. For the most part, Giant Bomb handled the ME3 controversy well. Get over it.
I was more talking about the general consensus of the crew. Back when ME3 was released they all thought it was OK and people were whining for no good reason but once Brad started playing the attitude from most of them has shifted including Jeff to some extent. Their stance now backs up most of what people were complaining about when the game was released, but back then they didn't really have that support most of the press were saying that the way the DLC was done was fine and pretty much shot down everyone that was complaining saying they were whiners that had no good reason.
Yes, what Elktap said is pretty much my position.
A lot of people bring up the fact that a lot of people behaved badly AND THEY TOTALLY DID, I'm not disagreeing, but it clouded the issue. The criticisms, at their core, were perfectly justified.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment