• 182 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#51 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3819 posts) -

@Kadayi said:

@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.

Oh, I don't think it's all EAs fault, at all. I'm just pointing out that I think EA is applying pressure to Bioware that they can't live up to. The writers and designers are at fault, but I don't think EA is helping matters. That's all. Although, I did just make a thread about how ME4 is on a 2 year production schedule (despite likely being on next-gen consoles) so THAT might be an issue, since they ALSO have to deal with new hardware.

@Rasmoss said:

@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.

There is no such thing as an "unacceptable" ending. You didn't like the ending. That's all. Get over it. Intentionally leaving necessary plot points and story context out to sell to someone afterwards is unacceptable. Having a vague or shitty ending is not. That's what you don't seem to get. At the time of release, we had no way of knowing whether that ending was intentional, or a marketing ploy. It seems it was both.

Fans do not get to demand things from their content creators. They do NOT have that right. Caving in to it even once kills the likelihood of anything artistic or meaningful being said because you're lowering things to the common denominator.

How many legendary film endings have been implied or vague or cryptic or incomplete? Blade Runner. Lost in Translation. In Bruges. Citizen Kane.

Maybe we should change every ending we don't like. I wanted Humphrey Bogart to get the girl in Casablanca. I hated that Clark Gable said he didn't give a damn in Gone With the Wind.

Of course, games aren't even close to this yet, but if "changing endings" because of fan outcry becomes a trend, we NEVER WILL.

Basically, I feel that there is a difference between deliberate artistic choices and incomplete. I think most people (even the whiners) assumed they made deliberate (albeit bad) choices for that ending. When it was revealed to be factually and intentionally incomplete for marketing reasons, that's when it became insulting, in my opinion. Sounds like that's how the GB crew feels, too.

#52 Edited by Kadayi (185 posts) -

@Elktap said:

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.

All I can recall about the early discussions of ME3 when it was launched was Jeff basically saying the game wasn't as good as ME2 in his view and that was why he gave it 80%. He certainly didn't touch on the lacklustre nature of the ending and I sure as hell don't recall any of the Bombcast running down the fanbase at any point in between now and then. This is the first time that I'm aware of any of the crew actually being openly critical of the games ending tbh.

#53 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

@Wrighteous86 said:

Maybe we should change every ending we don't like. I wanted Bogart to get the girl in Casablanca. I hated that he said he didn't give a damn in Gone With the Wind.

Bogart wasn't in Gone with the Wind. That was Clark Gable.

#54 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3819 posts) -

@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.

To be fair, at the time, aside from From Ashes, the implication was that most of the DLC would be along the lines of Omega, a side story with characters or plots fans are interested in that don't really tie into the main plot meaningfully. A diversion. Leviathan proved that implication to be absolutely false.

@Hailinel said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

Maybe we should change every ending we don't like. I wanted Bogart to get the girl in Casablanca. I hated that he said he didn't give a damn in Gone With the Wind.

Bogart wasn't in Gone with the Wind. That was Clark Gable.

Sorry, I was making two different points about two different movies. Poorly worded.

#55 Posted by phrosnite (3518 posts) -

GotY

#56 Posted by SlashDance (1828 posts) -

@phrosnite said:

GotY

You know what, if the purpose of art is to make people talk, then Mass Effect 3 is the most successful work of art of the last 10 years.

#57 Posted by triviaman09 (803 posts) -

@GunstarRed said:

Do you know what the world needs more of? Mass Effect 3 ending discussion.

*starts slow clap that turns into a raucous standing ovation*

#58 Posted by Kadayi (185 posts) -

@SlashDance said:

You know what, if the purpose of art is to make people talk, then Mass Effect 3 is the most successful work of art of the last 10 years.

Given both Bioware heads 'elected' to resign to pursue 'other things' I doubt they quite see it that way.

#59 Posted by Hugh_Jazz (363 posts) -

@ArtisanBreads said:

@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

I was just pointing out(I may have missed it in the bombcast, though) that Brad never said the revised ending was required viewing, and none of the guys seemed to think that the ending, revised or otherwise, was particularly good, revision and/or back-pedalling notwithstanding. It seems to me like most of the outrage displayed by the guys was because a piece of paid DLC, released after the launch of the game, was deemed to be of utmost importance for the understanding of the conclusion of the series. Not at all trying to be negative.

#60 Posted by Rasmoss (460 posts) -
@Hugh_Jazz

@ArtisanBreads said:

@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

I was just pointing out(I may have missed it in the bombcast, though) that Brad never said the revised ending was required viewing, and none of the guys seemed to think that the ending, revised or otherwise, was particularly good, revision and/or back-pedalling notwithstanding. It seems to me like most of the outrage displayed by the guys was because a piece of paid DLC, released after the launch of the game, was deemed to be of utmost importance for the understanding of the conclusion of the series. Not at all trying to be negative.

Brad explicitly says that the ending is abysmal without both the dlc and amended ending.
#61 Posted by bushpusherr (810 posts) -

@Rasmoss said:

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.

They've only "changed" their stance (in the sense that it's slightly more harsh now) because A) They are finally able to talk about the specifics in detail, B) They've all finished it now so they all know what's going on, and C) All the new shit that's come to light with how they've handled the story via DLC. Like they said, Brad didn't have a ME3 experience like anyone else did, because he played through all the DLC right a long with the campaign, and it seemed to significantly improve his experience because of the story it involves. It was obvious that THAT's what they were most angry about (and COULDNT have been angry about before because they didn't know about how the DLC would be handled.) This is so ridiculous you are even upset about this.

#62 Posted by Little_Socrates (5683 posts) -

@SlashDance said:

@phrosnite said:

GotY

You know what, if the purpose of art is to make people talk, then Mass Effect 3 is the most successful work of art of the last 10 years.

INDEED! In fact, as a result of all the fantastic discussion about this ending (good and bad, there are smart people who like the ending too, you guys) it's becoming one of my favorite endings to a game ever. Sure, The Darkness II, Red Dead Redemption, and Deadly Premonition had awesome endings. But they haven't provided me almost a year's worth of constant intellectual stimulation through discourse, essays, insane theories, comment threads, podcasts, my own thoughts, DLC that alters our understanding of its contents, and so on! And while a lot of that discussion is focused upon the series as a whole or the greater construction of Mass Effect 3, an individual section must always be devoted to the writer's perspective on the ending itself. If the ending of Mass Effect 3 was supposed to be anything, it was supposed to be a headscratching conversation starter. I don't think that BioWare expected to be burned at the stake for that fact, but I do think they knew their ending wasn't inherently satisfying.

But guys. It's not even the worst ending of the year. One look at Spec Ops: The Line, Far Cry 3, or Asura's Wrath (without the DLC, without the DLC!) should be able to tell you that. I totally get that you probably care more with Mass Effect, and I do too. But Mass Effect 3's ending is frustrating in a way that provokes conversation and thought. Those other three are just plain lame.

As for Mass Effect 3? Well, yes, the game itself has some notable frustrations. But I ultimately feel more positively about it than I did about Mass Effect 2, and I'm also willing to say that ME3 has my favorite game ending since Metal Gear Solid 3 nope, sorry guys, forgot about Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective.

#63 Posted by VoshiNova (1698 posts) -

@Bell_End said:

but they ARE entitled whinners.

Fixed. :)

#64 Edited by Pr1mus (3951 posts) -

Jeff never made it a secret from the start that he didn't think the ending was great.

Like others have said, i'm sure they were referring to the crazies signing online petitions and demanding a new ending as whiners, not people who just disliked the ending.

As for this week's bombcast there's also a strong case of Bioware and EA continuing to shit all over the game when you start to consider the original ending and what was in the game at launch. Depending on who you ask the extended cut wasn't the the solution and now the addition of Leviathan being a paid DLC just seems to continue making things worst in retrospect. The game may be overall a better experience today for someone who has never played it before and has managed to avoid any significant spoilers, but for everyone else it just keeps getting worst it seems.

#65 Posted by Rasmoss (460 posts) -
@bushpusherr They changed their stance when Brad started arguing the case. Sorry, but that's just a fact. And I'm not that "upset", I'm just calling out bullshit because it speaks to a larger issue.
#66 Posted by GaspoweR (3178 posts) -

Two points: First, the ending is pretty disappointing (with extended cut or without it) and second, LEVIATHAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FUCKING GAME TO BEGIN WITH.

#67 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3819 posts) -

@bushpusherr said:

@Rasmoss said:

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.

They've only "changed" their stance (in the sense that it's slightly more harsh now) because A) They are finally able to talk about the specifics in detail, B) They've all finished it now so they all know what's going on, and C) All the new shit that's come to light with how they've handled the story via DLC. Like they said, Brad didn't have a ME3 experience like anyone else did, because he played through all the DLC right a long with the campaign, and it seemed to significantly improve his experience because of the story it involves. It was obvious that THAT's what they were most angry about (and COULDNT have been angry about before because they didn't know about how the DLC would be handled.) This is so ridiculous you are even upset about this.

I like you.

#68 Edited by RenegadeDoppelganger (414 posts) -

I had the EXACT same experience as Brad. I started ME3 with all relevant DLC installed months and months after the whole ending fiasco. Playing the game like that, the story felt complete, personally I wasn't disappointed with the ending I received but I also understand some of the points people like Patrick and Jeff made about it sort of nullifying a lot of the build-up.

That being said, when I say the game felt 'complete' or that it had a 'complete ending' holy shit, how could that game have shipped with anything less? It's completely inexcusable how any senior writer could have looked at the information in Leviathan and thought it prudent to leave that missing until MONTHS after the original game had shipped. Is it at all possible that they actually wrote Leviathan after the fact as part of the reaction to the ending? That would at least provide a logical explanation but it still doesn't make what they chose do with the original any less dumb.

#69 Posted by Elktap (20 posts) -

@bushpusherr said:

They've only "changed" their stance (in the sense that it's slightly more harsh now) because A) They are finally able to talk about the specifics in detail, B) They've all finished it now so they all know what's going on, and C) All the new shit that's come to light with how they've handled the story via DLC. Like they said, Brad didn't have a ME3 experience like anyone else did, because he played through all the DLC right a long with the campaign, and it seemed to significantly improve his experience because of the story it involves. It was obvious that THAT's what they were most angry about (and COULDNT have been angry about before because they didn't know about how the DLC would be handled.) This is so ridiculous you are even upset about this.

That is true with Leviathan but it didn't attract as much outrage as From Ashes because that was day one DLC and considered to be an significant part of the story. Their stance from early on with that has changed.

#70 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (2902 posts) -

See this is why I did jump out and buy the game once people started complaining. Once the outcry started I just wanted to wait to play MS3 until the GOTY edition. But, now i can just pick up the trilogy for PS3. In that way I can play ME1 for the first time, play ME2 for the fifth time, and then just settle into ME3 will all the parts in place. It seem probable that I'll still dislike the ending...but at least I can see the choices Bioware made for the ending.

I actually see the abundance of criticism as helpful. The criticism and whining demonstrated fans paid attention - overall narrative, choices, and the mechanism for choice were important to teh fan base. Collectively, gamers don't just skim over the narrative and accept what is presented. I think more then anything is the fact that you can have the story go just one way...but that one ending must be honed, refined, and crafted to be satisfying. Also, it proves how content should not be stripped out for DLC when a game hinges on narrative. Bioware probably could have sold 10 million copies of their next game sight-unseen if ME3 had come out with the fully story, full roster of characters, and the full vision. That was a poor business choice that will have a real economic impact on the whole company in the next series.

#71 Posted by Rasmoss (460 posts) -

I've written too much in this thread already, and I don't really want to let it turn into a new case of internet mudslinging. I respect the opinion of people who were fine with the ending. My issue is with the narrative that arose from the ending debacle in the gaming press. Here is my summary of events:

1) The game is met with applause by the gaming press. It receives a 93 metacritic rating. Noone mentions the ending.

2) When the fans play the game, they point out massive issues with the ending. That it seems rushed, insulting and tacked on. Plenty of rational arguments are made. There is also overreaction.

3) The gaming press, in response to this issue, rather than examining and reevaluating their own view of the game, calls the fan reaction ridiculous.

4) In view of the fan reaction, Bioware decides to amend the ending. Again, rather than seeing this as an acknowledgement of the fans' issues, the gaming press is outraged, waxes lyrical about the sanctity of authorship, and feeds the narrative of the poor nerds at Bioware being strong armed by internet bullies (a ridiculous notion if I ever heard one).

5) As the year goes on, the game more and more is mentioned in the gaming press as one of the year's "disappointing" releases.

6) Cut to December, when Brad on the Bombcast is the first member of the gaming press that I have heard, be completely in line with the view that the original endings were insultingly poor.

If you have a different view of events, that is fine, but if you during all this was lobbed into a basket with people who harrassed poor female writers and signers of petitions in order to have what felt like legitimate issues dismissed, you would also have a bit of a bad taste in your mouth if it is now accepted that those criticisms were on the money.

But GB were more calm in their response to the issue than most, so perhaps this was the wrong place to bring it up. But kudos to them to at least have the discussion now, it does feel like a bit of a vindication.

#72 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4420 posts) -

ugh...when will it end?!

#73 Posted by bushpusherr (810 posts) -

@Rasmoss said:

@bushpusherr They changed their stance when Brad started arguing the case. Sorry, but that's just a fact. And I'm not that "upset", I'm just calling out bullshit because it speaks to a larger issue.

And Brad argued the case because he had a new perspective that was not available to them before (adapting your position to new evidence is intellectual honesty and integrity, not "bullshit"). And since this was a full on spoilercast, OF COURSE that opened the gates for the rest of the guys to vent, because they've chosen not to speak on it publicly until now.

@Elktap said:

That is true with Leviathan but it didn't attract as much outrage as From Ashes because that was day one DLC and considered to be an significant part of the story. Their stance from early on with that has changed.

What are you people even talking about?? Jeff wasn't bothered by the From Ashes stuff because he didn't get to play through the game with the extra character, he mostly just saw it as a lack-luster mission and a few dialogue wheels, so he didn't feel like he missed anything significant from it. However, you can go back to previous bombcasts around that time period and listen to the other guys as they were making their way through the game with the DLC from the start, and they were telling Jeff that he WAS missing out on something, and that it was really stupid for Bioware to cut that from the standard experience.

Their outrage on the bombcast is coming from all of these problems viewed as a WHOLE, which is a perspective that is only now available to them, and it's their first chance to talk in depth and in detail about it.

You guys are acting like they were white knights for this game, defending it against all comers, and now suddenly they are betraying their loyalty or some stupid shit. This is absurd.

#74 Posted by DeShawn2ks (1055 posts) -

Man I wonder what kind of lore the last ME3 dlc is going to add that is going to piss people off more next. Last piece of dlc looks like it might be pretty big, they got all the writers on it and a lot of the voice actors back. I personally like dlc that gives more and more back story to the universe. Javik really seems like he should have been included in the main game though. I'll take dlc like Leviathan over a 15 dollar map back any day.

#75 Posted by skrutop (3615 posts) -

I just finished ME3 about a month ago. That ending really was horrible.

#76 Posted by DeShawn2ks (1055 posts) -

@Colourful_Hippie said:

ugh...when will it end?!

Never this is your hell.

#77 Edited by Marokai (3065 posts) -
@Rasmoss: I could not agree more with this general layout of events. If people want to accuse me or anyone else of having a chip on my shoulder over this, then I freely admit, fuck yes do I have a chip on my shoulder about this.  
 
9 Months ago, virtually the entire gaming press circled the wagons in defense of their high scores of the game and of what was previously one of the most beloved development studios, and collectively shat on various communities of disappointed consumers who felt like parts of the game were lackluster and that the ending was terrible. The gaming press is essentially the first and last line of defense for defending consumer interests, and like in so many cases in the last few years, were MIA when most needed, only to apparently come around to most of the sentiments that the more intelligent criticism (that were a very large percentage of the outrage) were on point. 
 
Were there idiots doing idiotic things? For sure, as there are in literally any uproar about anything. But the silly petitions, reports to regulatory agencies, and the harassment of writers and producers, were stunts pulled by a small amount of people that were then used by those in the gaming press and some of the contrarian hipper-than-thous to mischaracterize and summarily dismiss what were, at the core, very serious and very fair complaints about the game.  
 
And yet, now, magically, months later, do we start hearing talk from some critics in the press that "Hey, maybe Mass Effect had some crippling problems" as if they're the Very Serious People that have risen above the fray to suddenly divine this information and no other legitimate criticism existed before them. 
 
If people on these forums used phrases like "it's a blight on the Mass Effect name" "it felt like it was spitting in my face" or "Mass Effect 3 betrayed me" they would've been called snotty entitled whiners. Patrick, Jeff, and Brad do it, and they get away with it as if everyone just suddenly came to the same realization. 
#78 Edited by bushpusherr (810 posts) -

@Marokai said:

@Rasmoss: I could not agree more with this general layout of events. If people want to accuse me or anyone else of having a chip on my shoulder over this, then I freely admit, fuck yes do I have a chip on my shoulder about this.

9 Months ago, virtually the entire gaming press circled the wagons in defense of their high scores of the game and of what was previously one of the most beloved development studios, and collectively shat on various communities of disappointed consumers who felt like parts of the game were lackluster and that the ending was terrible. The gaming press is essentially the first and last line of defense for defending consumer interests, and like in so many cases in the last few years, were MIA when most needed, only to apparently come around to most of the sentiments that the more intelligent criticism (that were a very large percentage of the outrage) were on point.

Were there idiots doing idiotic things? For sure, as there are in literally any uproar about anything. But the silly petitions, reports to regulatory agencies, and the harassment of writers and producers, were stunts pulled by a small amount of people that were then used by those in the gaming press and some of the contrarian hipper-than-thous to mischaracterize and summarily dismiss what were, at the core, very serious and very fair complaints about the game.

And yet, now, magically, months later, do we start hearing talk from some critics in the press that "Hey, maybe Mass Effect had some crippling problems" as if they're the Very Serious People that have risen above the fray to suddenly divine this information and no other legitimate criticism existed before them. If people on these forums used phrases like "it's a blight on the Mass Effect name" "it felt like it was spitting in my face" or "Mass Effect 3 betrayed me" they would've been called snotty entitled whiners. Patrick, Jeff, and Brad do it, and they get away with it as if everyone just suddenly came to the same realization.

In this thread the OP is condemning Giant Bomb's "shift" specifically, which I think it just silly to suggest that they have. If you wanna talk about 90% of the gaming press than that doesnt bother me, because I don't follow 90% of the gaming press, so I don't give a shit. But GB has been pretty good on this from the start.

Jeff gave it a 4 out of 5, and said it was a pretty good game, but not the best Mass Effect game they could have made. He said didn't care for the ending, and hated some of the plot devices, and agreed that the ending wasn't good but that the "entitled" people were taking it too far. He also didn't have any access to the DLC that we now have, which really brings to light just how much Bioware left off the table in the original game.

And no, the comments you characterize in your last paragraph have nothing to do with being entitled. The "entitlement" lable comes from the people who were demanding that Bioware fix their complaints, as if somehow Bioware owed them something because they weren't satisfied (you know, they felt entitled to that additional attention).

Yes there were plot holes and shit in the main game, but the outrage is coming from the way they are handling filling those plot holes. It's ONLY NOW apparent that Bioware had a much more complete story to tell, but instead delivered an incomplete and inferior one and are "fixing" it in paid DLC. That's what people are angry about.

#79 Posted by nohthink (1223 posts) -

@Rasmoss: The difference is that they are willing to respect BioWare's authorship and take it as what it is. Yes they will criticize it and yes they did not like it(and with reasons). Unlike the internet who demanded BioWare to change the endings, which is dumb even now.

#80 Edited by mnzy (2916 posts) -
@Rasmoss said:

I've written too much in this thread already, and I don't really want to let it turn into a new case of internet mudslinging. I respect the opinion of people who were fine with the ending. My issue is with the narrative that arose from the ending debacle in the gaming press. Here is my summary of events:

1) The game is met with applause by the gaming press. It receives a 93 metacritic rating. Noone mentions the ending.

I think this is key, tbh. Jeff gave the game 4 stars, that's almost an exception. The big majority gave it 90 and more, making it one of the best reviewed games this year.
#81 Posted by Rasmoss (460 posts) -

@nohthink said:

@Rasmoss: The difference is that they are willing to respect BioWare's authorship and take it as what it is. Yes they will criticize it and yes they did not like it(and with reasons). Unlike the internet who demanded BioWare to change the endings, which is dumb even now.

People on the internet demand a lot of things. It was Bioware's decision to change the endings. They were under no real pressure.

#82 Posted by mikey87144 (1797 posts) -

@Rasmoss said:

@nohthink said:

@Rasmoss: The difference is that they are willing to respect BioWare's authorship and take it as what it is. Yes they will criticize it and yes they did not like it(and with reasons). Unlike the internet who demanded BioWare to change the endings, which is dumb even now.

People on the internet demand a lot of things. It was Bioware's decision to change the endings. They were under no real pressure.

Bioware, by changing the ending, destroyed the only redeeming quality of the ending. How the universe was left after the Reaper invasion set up a great next trilogy for Mass Effect but by changing it they essentially put the universe back were it was before the whole Reaper invasion started.

#83 Posted by Rasmoss (460 posts) -

@mnzy said:

@Rasmoss said:

I've written too much in this thread already, and I don't really want to let it turn into a new case of internet mudslinging. I respect the opinion of people who were fine with the ending. My issue is with the narrative that arose from the ending debacle in the gaming press. Here is my summary of events:

1) The game is met with applause by the gaming press. It receives a 93 metacritic rating. Noone mentions the ending.

I think this is key, tbh. Jeff gave the game 4 stars, that's almost an exception. The big majority gave it 90 and more, making it one of the best reviewed games this year.

Yes, but Jeff had before the bombcast explicitly said several times that he didn't have any real problems with the endings. At the end of the bombcast he agrees with a lot of Brad's point. So there is a shift there .Jeff came at it from the view that the game was mediocre as a whole, so the ending didn't stand out. I thought the game was mostly fantastic, and that the ending was terrible. As did Brad. And, apparently, the rest of the crew, when it came down to it.

#84 Posted by haggis (1677 posts) -

@mikey87144 said:

@Rasmoss said:

@nohthink said:

@Rasmoss: The difference is that they are willing to respect BioWare's authorship and take it as what it is. Yes they will criticize it and yes they did not like it(and with reasons). Unlike the internet who demanded BioWare to change the endings, which is dumb even now.

People on the internet demand a lot of things. It was Bioware's decision to change the endings. They were under no real pressure.

Bioware, by changing the ending, destroyed the only redeeming quality of the ending. How the universe was left after the Reaper invasion set up a great next trilogy for Mass Effect but by changing it they essentially put the universe back were it was before the whole Reaper invasion started.

Bioware didn't change the ending, though. The ending was basically the same before and after the extended cut. Unless I played some other version of it than you did. They might have removed some ambiguity, but there was no significant change, only some filled in blanks.

#85 Posted by JasonR86 (9742 posts) -

@Rasmoss:

I'm not sure you heard what they said dude. Listen again.

#86 Posted by SniperXan (223 posts) -

@GunstarRed said:

Do you know what the world needs more of? Mass Effect 3 ending discussion.

#87 Posted by laserbolts (5331 posts) -

@JerichoBlyth: I thought they were working on another Mass Effect game. If Mass Effect was dead that wouldnt be happening.

#88 Posted by SlashDance (1828 posts) -

@haggis said:

@mikey87144 said:

@Rasmoss said:

@nohthink said:

@Rasmoss: The difference is that they are willing to respect BioWare's authorship and take it as what it is. Yes they will criticize it and yes they did not like it(and with reasons). Unlike the internet who demanded BioWare to change the endings, which is dumb even now.

People on the internet demand a lot of things. It was Bioware's decision to change the endings. They were under no real pressure.

Bioware, by changing the ending, destroyed the only redeeming quality of the ending. How the universe was left after the Reaper invasion set up a great next trilogy for Mass Effect but by changing it they essentially put the universe back were it was before the whole Reaper invasion started.

Bioware didn't change the ending, though. The ending was basically the same before and after the extended cut. Unless I played some other version of it than you did. They might have removed some ambiguity, but there was no significant change, only some filled in blanks.

Repairing the relays and allowing the Normandy to take off were pretty massive changes.

I hate the extended endings with passion. It's still as stupid but nowhere near as ballsy.

#89 Edited by Kadayi (185 posts) -

@haggis said:

Bioware didn't change the ending, though. The ending was basically the same before and after the extended cut. Unless I played some other version of it than you did. They might have removed some ambiguity, but there was no significant change, only some filled in blanks.

Indeed. I'm not sure mikey87144 is pulling that idea from at all, or how the EC somehow threatens the 'sanctity' of ME4 ('Oh it would of been some much better if Bioware had kept the ME3 ending untouched..now ME4 is ruined!!!'? WTF?)

#90 Posted by Dallas_Raines (2190 posts) -

I believe Patrick's use of 'insult' and 'spit in my face' were directly related to Leviathan and less the original ending.

#91 Posted by Rasmoss (460 posts) -

@Kadayi said:

@haggis said:

Bioware didn't change the ending, though. The ending was basically the same before and after the extended cut. Unless I played some other version of it than you did. They might have removed some ambiguity, but there was no significant change, only some filled in blanks.

Indeed. I'm not sure Rassmoss is pulling that idea from at all, or how the EC somehow threatens the 'sanctity' of ME4 ('Oh it would of been some much better if Bioware had kept the ME3 ending untouched..now ME4 is ruined!!!'? WTF?)

WTF?! I have never suggested anything like this!

#92 Posted by haggis (1677 posts) -

@SlashDance said:

@haggis said:

Bioware didn't change the ending, though. The ending was basically the same before and after the extended cut. Unless I played some other version of it than you did. They might have removed some ambiguity, but there was no significant change, only some filled in blanks.

Repairing the relays and allowing the Normandy to take off were pretty massive changes.

I hate the extended endings with passion. It's still as stupid but nowhere near as ballsy.

The status of the relays was ambiguous in the original ending--it was never said that they were destroyed, though clearly a few people thought that was the case (but not all). And the Normandy taking off--again, not a change, just a filled in blank. Both were clarifications, but didn't actually change anything, particularly the plot points that most people actually complained about.

#93 Posted by tread311 (357 posts) -

Everyone talks about the ending but the games real problem was the stupid wave based multiplayer maps they tried to pass off as single player levels. More people should complain about that.

#94 Posted by CaptainCody (1508 posts) -

Personally, I liked the ending. Maybe it's because I try not to over-analyze games and enjoy what I think is the most important part of them, and let me expand on why. 90% of developers do not know how to end games. I'm not sure what gets lost in translation from start to finish where a game just can't fucking end without it being something either horribly ham-fisted or cliffhanger-esque. My whole motivation behind playing a game is to beat it, why do I want to beat it, especially if the game is only okay? Oh yeah, BECAUSE OF THE STORY. So when the story and all that motivation has brought me to the climactic moment and all I get is a fucking Fable 2 style ending, you can bet your ass you done fucked up. Developers need to get their shit together with endings.

#95 Edited by Kadayi (185 posts) -

@CaptainCody said:

Personally, I liked the ending. Maybe it's because I try not to over-analyze games and enjoy what I think is the most important part of them, and let me expand on why. 90% of developers do not know how to end games. I'm not sure what gets lost in translation from start to finish where a game just can't fucking end without it being something either horribly ham-fisted or cliffhanger-esque. My whole motivation behind playing a game is to beat it, why do I want to beat it, especially if the game is only okay? Oh yeah, BECAUSE OF THE STORY. So when the story and all that motivation has brought me to the climactic moment and all I get is a fucking Fable 2 style ending, you can bet your ass you done fucked up. Developers need to get their shit together with endings.

Hold up. First you say you don't care about endings because they're all terrible 90% of the time so you're OK with that. Then you finish by saying the developers need to get their act together and write better endings? What gives here exactly?

#96 Posted by bigsmoke77 (790 posts) -

@Rasmoss: You need to learn to listen better, Brad said that the Leviathan DLC was "required" to get the most out of the ending, i don't remember him every saying that the extended cut endings were required, if u could provide a time stamp for him saying that then that would be great. Patrick was pissed at the fact that brad was saying Leviathan was key to the story and how either they planned on releasing that as DLC or they didn't have time to put it in the game because EA wanted the game launched.

You say mass effect 3 is a fantastic game? The quest system is a FUCKING JOKE! Bioware should be ashamed of themselves, especially when they accept awards for best RPG. The fact that Shepard solves the galaxy's major problems that have been going on for years in a couple days is fucking ridiculous.

#97 Posted by bigsmoke77 (790 posts) -

@bushpusherr: Your dead on, great post!

#98 Posted by SlashDance (1828 posts) -

@haggis said:

@SlashDance said:

@haggis said:

Bioware didn't change the ending, though. The ending was basically the same before and after the extended cut. Unless I played some other version of it than you did. They might have removed some ambiguity, but there was no significant change, only some filled in blanks.

Repairing the relays and allowing the Normandy to take off were pretty massive changes.

I hate the extended endings with passion. It's still as stupid but nowhere near as ballsy.

The status of the relays was ambiguous in the original ending--it was never said that they were destroyed, though clearly a few people thought that was the case (but not all). And the Normandy taking off--again, not a change, just a filled in blank. Both were clarifications, but didn't actually change anything, particularly the plot points that most people actually complained about.

Showing the relay blowing up was ambiguous ? In the extended cut you only see the rings flying off with no explosion, but in the original the thing blew up, no question about it. You should go watch that again. Same thing for the Normandy, the ship was busted in the original ending, I mean full of holes and on fire. When it's still in space you see the engines blowing up, too. There was no way this thing was going to fly again. None of that in the extended cut.

#99 Posted by Rasmoss (460 posts) -

@bigsmoke77 said:

@Rasmoss: You need to learn to listen better, Brad said that the Leviathan DLC was "required" to get the most out of the ending, i don't remember him every saying that the extended cut endings were required, if u could provide a time stamp for him saying that then that would be great. Patrick was pissed at the fact that brad was saying Leviathan was key to the story and how either they planned on releasing that as DLC or they didn't have time to put it in the game because EA wanted the game launched.

You say mass effect 3 is a fantastic game? The quest system is a FUCKING JOKE! Bioware should be ashamed of themselves, especially when they accept awards for best RPG. The fact that Shepard solves the galaxy's major problems that have been going on for years in a couple days is fucking ridiculous.

0:53:10: "The original execution of the ending is abysmal. It is vastly improved the way I played the game."

I won't argue against your opinion on the rest of the game, you're certainly entitled to that.

#100 Posted by xMEGADETHxSLY (446 posts) -

TELL ME MORE ABOUT THE BOMBCAST