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.
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.