Mass Effect 3: The Ending(s) [ Spoilers ]

Ian7 · 23-04-2012 4:13pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A few of us have repeated time and time again in this thread why audiences have no right to demand the resolution they want: that's art by consensus, which is frankly a terrifying prospect. What matters first and foremost is the vision of the creators.

Art by Consensus....The Mass Effect series has pretty much taken on board many, many ideas from the fans, some of it through gauging fans reaction and some of it through polls. Bioware have left themselves open to this "want", they've succumb and even requested on many occasions. To suddenly take away the fans opinion on such a HUGE aspect of the series would in my opinion be hypocrisy. By succumbing this time does not mean that every game from now on will have to change its ending. As long as the writing is consistent the consumer will be happy.

johnny_ultimate · 23-04-2012 4:27pm

Ian7 wrote: »

Art by Consensus....The Mass Effect series has pretty much taken on board many, many ideas from the fans, some of it through gauging fans reaction and some of it through polls. Bioware have left themselves open to this "want", they've succumb and even requested on many occasions. To suddenly take away the fans opinion on such a HUGE aspect of the series would in my opinion be hypocrisy. By succumbing this time does not mean that every game from now on will have to change its ending. As long as the writing is consistent the consumer will be happy.

Fan participation is a double-edged sword, although one side is sharper than the other. Yes, in rare cases it can help buoy and expand the lore and scope of a work. But countless times it can dilute it, too, as obsessive fans change and expand upon stuff that, ultimately, doesn't matter at all. Perhaps in Mass Effect's case, there may be argument for it. Maybe. But it sets an unwelcome precedent, IMO, and needs to remain a once off.

There's a reason fan fiction deserve its negative reputation, after all, and why we leave art in the hands of the artist.

Also, you shouldn't think of yourself as a consumer first and foremost: I certainly don't when I'm playing a game, watching a film, reading a book. That's doing yourself a disservice: I sure as hell would like to think I'm more than a wallet.

wyrn · 23-04-2012 4:30pm

Ian7 wrote: »

Shepard is alive after the rush, Coats is clearly alive, Anderson is still alive, all of your squad are alive and have made it back to the Normandy after the final rush. We even see ground forces still fighting the reapers after the Citadel blows up.

Did everyone else see their team on the Normandy? I had Joker and Edi and I think possibly Kaiden when they got off the ship, but it was just focussed on Joker & Edi.

ShooterSF · 23-04-2012 4:55pm

Reading up on the indoctrination theory it's some fantastic fan fiction! Though it still leaves you needing a real ending and would rely on the cliched dream sequence mechanic.

I think the biggest problem I think people have is that Bioware didn't seem to think the fans would start to find plot holes and problems with the endings, the whole aliens stranded at earth, aliens that can't eat human food etc. They didn't care about the depth and detail of their universe as much as their fans and they really should. If I wrote an epic like this and had a fan point out how it contradicted itself later I'd be disgusted with myself. This should have been their love child and they should have wanted a great ending (not happy, just congruent).

What this ending does do is give the developers a clean slate to write future sequels on, set in the future. They don't have to care about which options you chose in the previous games or that their future universe is not the same as your one if they just made one ending canon and ignored the rest (Command and Conquer style).
From a development POV that makes sense I guess as the more games you go in the more possible combinations there are and it get's all very bloated. Hell there was voice actors credited for characters in the third game that I never met (through options in the first 2).

Ian7 · 23-04-2012 5:12pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There's a reason fan fiction deserve its negative reputation, after all, and why we leave art in the hands of the artist

That is a very good point. While I understand your concern and just as you say perhaps there maybe a case for Mass Effect, it is probably a good thing if this is completely a once off.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Also, you shouldn't think of yourself as a consumer first and foremost: I certainly don't when I'm playing a game, watching a film, reading a book. That's doing yourself a disservice: I sure as hell would like to think I'm more than a wallet.

Does this mean that you expect what you are paying for? as in the ending you paid for

:D. Only messin, I don't think there is any need for us to keep going down that road.

wyrn wrote: »

Did everyone else see their team on the Normandy? I had Joker and Edi and I think possibly Kaiden when they got off the ship, but it was just focussed on Joker & Edi.

Everyone gets a slightly different variation on the characters who appear out of the Normandy thus the assumption that all of them are alive. Why they don't all walk off the Normandy together is just one of the many unexplained aspects of the ending.

Only Bieber knows.....

By the by, the characters which come out of the Normandy include Joker in all cases, your love interest and your most used squad mate. Now, considering that your most used squad mate and your love interest may have very well been with you right up until you were blazered by Harbinger, what does that say about their loyalties? Leaving you in agony on the ground while they run away? Terrible terrible writing.

wyrn · 23-04-2012 6:19pm

Ian7 wrote: »

By the by, the characters which come out of the Normandy include Joker in all cases, your love interest and your most used squad mate. Now, considering that your most used squad mate and your love interest may have very well been with you right up until you were blazered by Harbinger, what does that say about their loyalties? Leaving you in agony on the ground while they run away? Terrible terrible writing.

I should have saved Ashley, she wouldn't have run away!

Actually I had an issue with Kaiden's story - we had a conversation where he "forgave me" for cheating on him, even though I had died and he fecked off and ignored me when we finally reunited. Didn't even fight for me when I hooked up with Cerebus. Then he didn't even apologies for Thane, who had just died. Seriously though, that really bothered me. I know it shouldn't and in the grand scheme of things, it's not that important. I swear, if there had been a renegade moment he would have been b1tchslapped off the citadel.

/silly girly rant

johnny_ultimate · 23-04-2012 6:28pm

Just saw Kotaku published this, and I think it's relevant to our argument about why developers shouldn't take 'fans' too seriously

http://kotaku.com/5904367/another-day-another-death-threat-from-gamers-to-the-people-who-make-video-games

noodler · 23-04-2012 6:53pm

Ian7 wrote: »

Just to clarify, I'm talking about the middle of the earth mission where you meet Anderson and not the bit where Shepard gets hit by the beam, in which case...exactly..it doesn't explicitly say that more than 50% of Hammer have been killed on the way down. They just say that "X percent have reported in".
Anderson even says that "there's some stragglers still en-route".

As was I. There is a moment when you are walking around the London camp where you can overhear a radio transmission on each of the individual Hammer squads and whether or not they made it.

It seems to be a fixed variable.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Reading up on the indoctrination theory it's some fantastic fan fiction! Though it still leaves you needing a real ending and would rely on the cliched dream sequence mechanic.

Bioware's tweets since the public outcry have been vague but to me they suggest that the theory isn't simply fan fiction.

I was convinced 5 minutes into the 20 minutes the youtube video I watched 20 mins after I finished the game.

Gbear · 23-04-2012 7:07pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Just saw Kotaku published this, and I think it's relevant to our argument about why developers shouldn't take 'fans' too seriously

http://kotaku.com/5904367/another-day-another-death-threat-from-gamers-to-the-people-who-make-video-games

It's very simple. View someone's argument based on it's own merit.

Not taking "nerds" seriously because some dickhead sends a death threat is easy but ultimately stupid.

In the end, directors of films, novelists and developers of games are only mere mortals.

Dismissing all criticism of something by tarring all the critics with the same brush - in this case "angry entitled nerds", is a massive failure of logic that is all too common in all forms of argument.

Ian7 · 23-04-2012 7:14pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Just saw Kotaku published this, and I think it's relevant to our argument about why developers shouldn't take 'fans' too seriously

I agree. Anyone who issues death threats or send hate in any form to any dev or team does enormous damage to genuine fans who just want to be heard. The hate being directed toward Casey Hudson at the moment is sickening in most cases. The worst thing is, people who wouldn't even dream of being nasty or who wouldn't consider themselves to be nasty feel it's ok to do so over the net as they have anonymity to hide behind. I reckon though with any form of media there is this element of nastiness. You just have to look at the comments on youtube, that place is a cesspit of hatred.

Ian7 · 23-04-2012 7:22pm

noodler wrote: »

As was I. There is a moment when you are walking around the London camp where you can overhear a radio transmission on each of the individual Hammer squads and whether or not they made it

Ah sorry, I must have missed that bit. Does he mention the status of all squads? Or is he just naming individual squads?

noodler wrote: »

It seems to be a fixed variable.

noodler · 23-04-2012 7:39pm

Ian7 wrote: »

Ah sorry, I must have missed that bit. Does he mention the status of all squads? Or is he just naming individual squads?

It goes on for quite a while if you wait long enough but some British Woman says that Squad X had a 50% mortality rate, then squad Y had a 70% rate etc then the last squad had mortality of 100%.

Ian7 wrote: »

I mean I think its always 50%.

Eggy Baby! · 23-04-2012 8:16pm

To use a comparison. I very strongly disliked the epilogue to Harry Potter, which I thought was a poorly-written and misguided conclusion to an otherwise perfectly enjoyable tale: one that was several thousand pages long and cost me a hundred euro or so to experience. I did not write to JK Rowling demanding she changed it, because that would be unreasonable. Indeed, I respect her right to handle it the way she did, as it is after all her story rather than mine.

Again, Mass Effect is different to Harry Potter in that it is interactive. Harry Potter is one fixed story. Mass Effect is several fixed possible stories. As a game which markets itself on game-defining choices, it should have lived up to that.

Ian7 · 23-04-2012 9:21pm

At this stage, this whole argument which is focused solely on ME is moot as Bioware are releasing the DLC now anyway without changing the ending.
If you think about it, they haven't really caved in to fan pressure. If the DLC is merely extra scenes without altering the existing plot line then their "artistic integrity" is preserved.

Planned or not planned, i really believe Bioware will deliver the goods with the DLC, they have a lot riding on it now having taking the plunge and announcing it. It would be pointless for them not to release something substantial.

Funny how they are able to turn a piece of DLC around in the space of three months though when it took 2+ months just to fix the face import bug, don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but.....:P

Eggy Baby! · 23-04-2012 9:45pm

Planned or not planned, i really believe Bioware will deliver the goods with the DLC, they have a lot riding on it now having taking the plunge and announcing it. It would be pointless for them not to release something substantial.

tbh, it will be a miracle if they pull this off.

hooradiation · 23-04-2012 11:57pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I wouldn't trust anything developers say.

Well, if you want to pretend you know better, who am I to argue with a self appointed Internet expert....

Retr0gamer · 24-04-2012 1:21am

I'm just saying a bit of healthy skepticism instead of trusting every word from someone that has a vested interest in making you believe in what they say is better than hanging on their every word. You wouldn't trust a politician towing the party line and in the same manner I wouldn't fully trust a developer that won't say won't say anything that could damage his employers interests or affect sales because that's what matters at the end of the day. They're hardly impartial.

Ian7 · 24-04-2012 10:05am

noodler wrote: »

I mean I think its always 50%.

Yeah I think that is the max %. Seemingly it is actually lower if your EMS is low though. I like those little bits in the game but I wish we could actually see the results instead of being told numbers.

Also, do you see the angle I'm coming at though? If indoctrination theory is true, there would possibly need to be some ground forces remaining to help Shepard.

This is a wild dream, but I'd love to see the Krogan charging down Harbinger on Kakliosaurs and the Elcor firing from the back lines with their back mounted guns. doubt we'll see anything of the sort though.

hooradiation · 24-04-2012 10:16am

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm just saying a bit of healthy skepticism instead of trusting every word from someone that has a vested interest in making you believe in what they say is better than hanging on their every word. You wouldn't trust a politician towing the party line and in the same manner I wouldn't fully trust a developer that won't say won't say anything that could damage his employers interests or affect sales because that's what matters at the end of the day. They're hardly impartial.

Healthy scepticism my arse, it's bullshit and you know it.

You're not 'trusting' them simply because of who you imagine they are and nothing else. You have no damn idea how games are made in the slightest, but you're willing to hold a contrarian viewpoint because otherwise you'd be listening to those damn sneaky developers.
It's the same line of thought that conspiracy theorists use to justify 9/11 was an inside job or whatever, the alternative must be true because otherwise you're just listening to them and you can't do that, apparently.

Ian7 · 24-04-2012 10:33am

ou, someone touched a nerve.

gizmo · 24-04-2012 10:36am

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm just saying a bit of healthy skepticism instead of trusting every word from someone that has a vested interest in making you believe in what they say is better than hanging on their every word. You wouldn't trust a politician towing the party line and in the same manner I wouldn't fully trust a developer that won't say won't say anything that could damage his employers interests or affect sales because that's what matters at the end of the day. They're hardly impartial.

There's a fine line between a healthy dose of scepticism and thinking one knows better though. You said it best yourself earlier in fact, it's never as simple as it appears, especially when dealing with publisher announcements. Maintaining such a cynical stance even when faced with a perfectly logical explanation for a certain feature or decision, however, is what will generally irk some people.

hooradiation · 24-04-2012 10:37am

Ian7 wrote: »

ou, someone touched a nerve.

hardly.

johnny_ultimate · 24-04-2012 10:42am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Again, Mass Effect is different to Harry Potter in that it is interactive. Harry Potter is one fixed story. Mass Effect is several fixed possible stories. As a game which markets itself on game-defining choices, it should have lived up to that.

I think in that regard it succeeds up until the last ten minutes, much like Harry Potter succeeds up until the last ten pages, but I'm not of the opinion that interactivity skews the argument as you're still experiencing an author's pre-defined story / stories. Both are examples of good stories that IMO simply fail to deliver a well considered ending. Doesn't undo the good that came before. If it's merely the ending - and by ending, we're referring to the last ten minutes, the three-way choice, and the final cutscenes - you take umbrage with, than shouldn't you take solace in the I'm presuming otherwise satisfactory 75 hours of storytelling and gameplay that came before it?

Retr0gamer · 24-04-2012 11:16am

hooradiation wrote: »

You're not 'trusting' them simply because of who you imagine they are and nothing else. You have no damn idea how games are made in the slightest, but you're willing to hold a contrarian viewpoint because otherwise you'd be listening to those damn sneaky developers.

Not holding any contrarian viewpoints at all. Read my post next time before making accusations. Maybe it's from doing science all these years but I never jump to conclusions about anything unless it comes from an impartial source or I hear both sides of the story with evidence.

hooradiation wrote: »

It's the same line of thought that conspiracy theorists use to justify 9/11 was an inside job or whatever, the alternative must be true because otherwise you're just listening to them and you can't do that, apparently.

Bahahaha! You're going to bring up the nazi's next right?

hooradiation · 24-04-2012 11:33am

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Not holding any contrarian viewpoints at all. Read my post next time before making accusations. Maybe it's from doing science all these years but I never jump to conclusions about anything unless it comes from an impartial source or I hear both sides of the story with evidence.

Which is why your amazing science skills have led you to state that "[you] wouldn't trust anything developers say." (emphasis mine)

That's some top quality work there. The model of the scientific method.
I hope you put a bit more effort into the actual science you do, for your employers sake.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Bahahaha! You're going to bring up the nazi's next right?

Why would I, what do Nazis have to do with you pretending you know what you're talking about?

Retr0gamer · 24-04-2012 11:44am

That's not science, I'm just suggesting that the word of someone that is under contract and has his employment at stake isn't impartial. You're probably right in this case but it's more the way you state your opinions as cold hard facts even when there's not much to back it up that is abrasive and causing trouble here. You can have a discussion here even with some one who is blatantly wrong without acting like that.

Eggy Baby! · 24-04-2012 12:08pm

Doesn't undo the good that came before. If it's merely the ending

Agreed. I saw a poll on the Bioware Social Network which was titled: "Were you satisfied with Mass Effect 3?"

85% said no, they weren't.

When I looked at the comments, 99% of those who commented and who were not satisfied said "It was because of the ending, but the rest of the game was great".

That's some top quality work there. The model of the scientific method.

Nice sarcasm, that's really adding to your argument.

No, I insist.

So now you're comparing people who call into question EA's business practices to Troothers? There's a reason why they were voted worst company in America, ahead of Nazi Ger- I mean, Bank of America. And it wasn't just because of the Mass Effect 3 ending. It's because their business practices generally suck. So yeah, its totally reasonable (to them, not to the consumer) that they should rip segments out of the game and have them sold as overpriced DLC. Totally reasonable.

It's the same line of thought that conspiracy theorists use to justify 9/11 was an inside job or whatever, the alternative must be true because otherwise you're just listening to them and you can't do that, apparently.

On a side note, the American government are hardly believable...these are the guys that told us there were WMDs in Iraq and there are currently some in Iran. But that's for the politics forum.

ou're probably right in this case but it's more the way you state your opinions as cold hard facts even when there's not much to back it up that is abrasive and causing trouble here. You can have a discussion here even with some one who is blatantly wrong without acting like that.

I agree. IMO, hooradiation's tone is getting a bit obnoxious.

degrassinoel · 24-04-2012 12:11pm

no matter how many times i play through i just cant.. cant cannot kill mordin..

It's too hard, he's just far too awesome, see for yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXiU6kiq_Ms

HOW, anyone could possibly kill him in ME3 is beyond me

Kiith · 24-04-2012 12:17pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

HOW, anyone could possibly kill him in ME3 is beyond me

I agree. You really have to be going out of your way to be a total dick to choose shooting him over helping him.

hooradiation · 24-04-2012 12:23pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

So now you're comparing people who call into question EA's business practices to Troothers?

No, just pointing out how flawed Retr0's reasoning was. Unsurprisingly, providing an example of similarly woolly thinking went over both your heads.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

There's a reason why they were voted worst company in America, ahead of Nazi Ger- I mean, Bank of America.

Yeah, that was a profoundly stupid moment, even for the internet.
I'm not surprised you believe it constitutes some kind of validation though.

And more amazingly, that it somehow validates your idea that contrary to everything "from ashes" was a massive scam of some sort. Because game content never got cut before the advent of DLC. Or something.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

On a side note, the American government are hardly believable...these are the guys that told us there were WMDs in Iraq and there are currently some in Iran. But that's for the politics forum.

The point, because labouring it excessively seems to be the only way it can be made around these parts, is that taking one 'side' of an issue and flat out stating "I wouldn't trust anything they say" is a bad thing. If you're supposed to be a sane, rational person then examining both sides before making a call is the very least you could do.

Stating things like "I wouldn't trust anything developers say" shows that there is no interest in anything but maintaining the conclusions that have already been drawn.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

I agree. IMO, hooradiation's tone is getting a bit obnoxious.

Good.

degrassinoel wrote: »

no matter how many times i play through i just cant.. cant cannot kill mordin..

Shot him like a dog. He was in the way.

degrassinoel · 24-04-2012 12:30pm

hooradiation wrote: »

Shot him like a dog. He was in the way.

surprisingly, not surprised. You seem to me to have a streak of reptilian in you rivaling that of any Salarian.

johnny_ultimate · 24-04-2012 12:41pm

Have to agree with hooradiation on the Worst Company in America bull****. Goes to show a group of embittered fanboys (and in this case, yes, I'm going with the descriptor fanboys, as I doubt anyone reasonable could possible vote for EA over various other companies) with a chip on their shoulder can blow things out of all proportion. How bitterness over a good videogame's bad ending and some questionable but easily ignorable DLC practices put it in the same league as a company that helped bring down the world economy and ruined thousands (millions?) of lives is anyone's guess. Pretty telling that the campaign in favour of EA's admirable, forward-thinking stance in the face of childish and homophobic 'criticisms' (ahem) was all but ignored. And then there's the question of how EA themselves were in anyway responsible for the storytelling failures of Bioware? That seems like a question too logical for the poll participants, alas. Not saying EA are the model of business etiquette, but they have in recent years shown themselves to have purposefully distanced themselves from the shovelware factory of old: focusing on quality over quantity, and a continued encouragement of new IPs that risked commercial disaster, from Mirror's Edge to Shadows of the Damned (even giving Dead Space a second go-around despite poor initial sales: a gamble that paid many dividends).

It's a bad ending to a videogame. That's all, and some of the more extreme reactions are completely out of line with reality.

Kiith · 24-04-2012 12:49pm

The worst company thing was an online poll wasn't it? Of course EA was going to 'win' it after the ME3 ending, as people in their tousands/tens of thousands who were pissed off at the stupid the ending was, and had an easy avenue to complain.

I very much doubt the vast majority of people actually think EA are worse then BoA.

pixelburp · 24-04-2012 12:54pm

Jeez this thread's beginning to go around in circles, I'm sure I read the same stuff pages & pages back.

Oh and everyone knows the worst gaming company is Ubisoft, not EA

Retr0gamer · 24-04-2012 1:03pm

Capcom are getting pretty high up in my list as well. I wouldn't really put EA anywhere near the top of the worst companies ever, even for videogames companies. A few years ago maybe but they've turned themselves around. Bioware are just coming off badly by this because the PR are struggling to deal wiht what has happened. I can't blame them really either, I wouldn't have had a contingency plan for this kind of over reaction. The whole affair is pretty embarassing when you sum up what the whole thing over like johnny_ultimate did; a bit of bad writing from a company not exactly known for good writing. As far as I can see it, they tried something different and messed up. If you enjoyed the game up to that point then I don't see the problem.

hightower1 · 24-04-2012 1:11pm

hooradiation wrote: »

Why would I, what do Nazis have to do with you pretending you know what you're talking about?

He is referrng to Godwins law stating that as the length of an online discussion contiues the likely hood of one person being accused o being a Nazi or a racist of some form increased expenetially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

johnny_ultimate · 24-04-2012 1:12pm

Also: Activision. Telling how many once Activision employees have migrated to EA.

noodler · 24-04-2012 1:30pm

So assuming nobody knows for sure the development process:

- Developer is a vested interest
- No accountability (you never ever know if From Ashes was part of the game that was cut out or not, you simply have to take their word)
- The way Javik is engrained in the story makes it quite quite ambigous (at best) as to whether or not he was part of the game)
- If developers use the "developed alongside the game" argument then we will never be able to assess the truth to the statement.

I still think based on the above (which I would say are factually) that it remains necessary to have a quite a high degree od scepticism on what the developer or publisher says.

Eggy Baby! · 24-04-2012 1:55pm

HOW, anyone could possibly kill him in ME3 is beyond me

I drew the gun on him, but didn't hit the Renegade prompt. He goes up the lift and Shepard walks away, throwing his gun into a corner. Epic stuff.

IMO, however, ME2>ME3>ME1.

Have to agree with hooradiation on the Worst Company in America bull****.

Wouldn't people blame Bioware for the ending and not EA?

Admittedly the Mass effect ending for some reason or another focused anger on EA. There are ME fans who believe EA is destroying the franchise. I disagree. ME2 was the best, IMO. And EA published that too. Also, From Ashes was very good, if overpriced. And if the DLC was meant to be in the game initially (which it probably was) we still get a huge value for money with ME3. It's 30-ish hours long and has great multiplayer. BUT that doesn't erase the often annoying business practices of EA. And they're not the worst company in America, honestly. There are far worse companies out there. Hell, they're not even the worst gaming company.

But of course, people who buy EA-published used games and have to fork out the cash for online passes might disagree with me. Not like they're the only ones that do it, however. Plus, people might find the EA cash cow FIFA franchise a little despicable, but I don't really care about that.

And I was very satisfied with ME3. Hopefully they can turn this ending thing around because the game is perfect up to that point.

I very much doubt the vast majority of people actually think EA are worse then BoA.

No matter how bad EA are, I don't think that they've ever brought out a foreclosure on someone's house.

That's all, and some of the more extreme reactions are completely out of line with reality.

I disagree with the guy who went to the Federal Trade Bureau and the death threats.

Retake Mass Effect, although they do come off as over-entitled fanboys, did raise a hell of a lot of money for Child's Play. Which makes them Paragons in my book.

(even giving Dead Space a second go-around despite poor initial sales: a gamble that paid many dividends)

My friend has Dead Space 2 and although he found the singleplayer great, he believes that the multiplayer felt tacked-on and is convinced EA had something to do with it. Although everyone decried the prospect of multi in Mass Effect 3, it is bloody great fun (although I disagree with some design decisions, like the randomized unlock packs).

You seem to me to have a streak of reptilian in you rivaling that of any Salarian.

"They used to eat flies".

Doesn't Javik have a Nigerian accent?

hooradiation · 24-04-2012 1:56pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

surprisingly, not surprised. You seem to me to have a streak of reptilian in you rivaling that of any Salarian.

It was a renegade run!
And I'm certain you think that was clever, so I'll let it slide.

Retr0gamer · 24-04-2012 2:02pm

Maybe a few years ago the content was cut to be used as DLC and there has been cases of developers saying that. Now you can be pretty sure that companies have plans for day one DLC before the game is even greenlit. A shoddy practice for consumers but a fact of life these days.

I don't buy the line that day one dlc is developed by members of the team that have a small workload as the game is going gold or in promotion stages. I've seen more than enough documentaries on game development and read about it. Come the game going gold everyone is working crazy hours. The exception is the art staff who are faffing about but art staff aren't going to make you a 2-4 hour piece of DLC and liason with the main developers to have it integrated into the code. After the game goes gold you have a 2-1.5 month period while the marketing staff do their thing. Everyone else takes a well deserved holiday. 2 months at most is not enough to get such high quality DLC done.

It's developed in tandem with the main game. It would be nice if developers would admit that and I'd have no problem with it. However I can see why they don't, mostly because there'll be another over reaction ****storm like the ME3 ending one. So it's kind of in the developers and publishers interest to keep on the fans side because, well the mass effect ending thing shows the extremes of silliness that can result.

richymcdermott · 24-04-2012 2:10pm

cliff bleszinski (the biggest ass kisser and troll ) came out recently and said this is unfortunatley the business thats around till games go digital then we can enjoy full games for 30 euros .

AMM cliff mass effect 3 is 70 QUID on psn full game and still no additional content for free plus game is 20 euros dearer

Developers talk out of their asses ,others follow their lies...

hooradiation · 24-04-2012 2:30pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Maybe a few years ago the content was cut to be used as DLC and there has been cases of developers saying that. Now you can be pretty sure that companies have plans for day one DLC before the game is even greenlit. A shoddy practice for consumers but a fact of life these days.

I don't buy the line that day one dlc is developed by members of the team that have a small workload as the game is going gold or in promotion stages. I've seen more than enough documentaries on game development and read about it. Come the game going gold everyone is working crazy hours. The exception is the art staff who are faffing about but art staff aren't going to make you a 2-4 hour piece of DLC and liason with the main developers to have it integrated into the code. After the game goes gold you have a 2-1.5 month period while the marketing staff do their thing. Everyone else takes a well deserved holiday. 2 months at most is not enough to get such high quality DLC done.

It's developed in tandem with the main game. It would be nice if developers would admit that and I'd have no problem with it. However I can see why they don't, mostly because there'll be another over reaction ****storm like the ME3 ending one. So it's kind of in the developers and publishers interest to keep on the fans side because, well the mass effect ending thing shows the extremes of silliness that can result.

Sooooo, what is it that has you convinced that the ME3 engine had such poor support for integrating optional characters into the game, given it's built on ME2 which had two such characters. And how do you explain your idea that the art team couldn't do anything for From Ashes while it was going gold when you also state the art team wasn't doing anything while ME3 was going gold?

Because the central premise of your post appears to be that it's impossible for the From Ashes DLC to be completed in the three months from content complete to release, yet for this to be accurate ME3 would have to have lost the ability to add in DLC characters without serious work, which makes no sense. Also it seems to live in a world where reusing art assets and code isn't a thing that happens.

Retr0gamer · 24-04-2012 2:53pm

Well for one, artists aren't coders. Also there's the nightmare of integrating DLC into a game that is currently undergoing final QA and last minute coding, all the coders are more than likely sleeping at their desks and not going home at this stage in development. Then there's the certification from Microsoft and sony that needs to be dealt with which is a long drawn out prospect and the bug testing they will do, I hear of tales that this can take up to 6 months. Then there's testing how well the code will slot into the game once it's finished and how it will work with MS and Sony's online infrastructure and content delivery systems, although that's alleviated somewhat by the DLC for Mass Effect 3 being on the disc.

From my experience with Konami 2 months is the time it takes from a game going gold to getting released. Your coders have all gone on holidays or gone to new projects and that 2 month time frame really isn't enough to get a good quality DLC made and then also certified by the platform holders.

There's a whole lot of work there. If I was a developer then the most cost effective and clever solution was to have it all implimented and ready to go in with the final gold game since there will be less coding and certification headaches. It's the easiest and cleverest way to do it and I can't begrudge them for doing it, I would to.

gizmo · 24-04-2012 3:07pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Wouldn't people blame Bioware for the ending and not EA?

Admittedly the Mass effect ending for some reason or another focused anger on EA. There are ME fans who believe EA is destroying the franchise. I disagree. ME2 was the best, IMO. And EA published that too.

It's simple really, an extremely large proportion of gamers don't know how to differentiate between publisher and developer. Hell, people blame EA for Bioware ditching their traditional RPG titles yet the change had already started to happen before the acquisition with the likes of Jade Empire and Mass Effect 1.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Maybe a few years ago the content was cut to be used as DLC and there has been cases of developers saying that. Now you can be pretty sure that companies have plans for day one DLC before the game is even greenlit. A shoddy practice for consumers but a fact of life these days.

It's not really a shoddy business practice unless the final game is worse off due to the exclusion of said content though. As it is, it's a simple issue of allocation of resources, both time and money. In X amount of time they can implement Y features for the normal retail price. Nowadays, an additional set of Z features can be implemented when you factor in the ability to charge more money via DLC. While it's all well and good to say they should include everything, every game developed since the early days of gaming has had content cut because it couldn't be completed in a reasonable amount of time, the difference is now they have an alternative way of getting this content to people.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I don't buy the line that day one dlc is developed by members of the team that have a small workload as the game is going gold or in promotion stages. I've seen more than enough documentaries on game development and read about it. Come the game going gold everyone is working crazy hours. The exception is the art staff who are faffing about but art staff aren't going to make you a 2-4 hour piece of DLC and liason with the main developers to have it integrated into the code. After the game goes gold you have a 2-1.5 month period while the marketing staff do their thing. Everyone else takes a well deserved holiday. 2 months at most is not enough to get such high quality DLC done.

Depends on the company, the team, the game and the content. If we're dealing in absolutes then you're incorrect to assume it isn't or can't be done. You recognise the fact that the art staff would be somewhat idle in this period but what about the designers, specifically those who specialise in level design and scripting?

If you want to focus on From Ashes then, using your logic, how can you explain the split in content between that which was on the disc and the 600-odd megs of content which had to be downloaded afterwards?

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a whole lot of work there. If I was a developer then the most cost effective and clever solution was to have it all implimented and ready to go in with the final gold game since there will be less coding and certification headaches. It's the easiest and cleverest way to do it and I can't begrudge them for doing it, I would to.

So, bearing the above in mind, locked content on the disc? :pac:

degrassinoel · 24-04-2012 3:14pm

hooradiation wrote: »

It was a renegade run!
And I'm certain you think that was clever, so I'll let it slide.

That's funny because I'm Certain you took it as an insult rather than a ribbing now

hooradiation · 24-04-2012 3:15pm

Ohhh dear.....

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well for one, artists aren't coders. Also there's the nightmare of integrating DLC into a game that is currently undergoing final QA and last minute coding, all the coders are more than likely sleeping at their desks and not going home at this stage in development.

What is it that makes you think artists can't create art assets without the aid of developers? What is it that makes you think the system for integrating the DLC would be "a nightmare" given that ME3 is built on the ME2 engine, which had support for this? And most importantly why are you confusing the time before content complete with the time after it's been submitted for certification?

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Then there's the certification from Microsoft and sony that needs to be dealt with which is a long drawn out prospect and the bug testing they will do, I hear of tales that this can take up to 6 months. Then there's testing how well the code will slot into the game once it's finished and how it will work with MS and Sony's online infrastructure and content delivery systems, although that's alleviated somewhat by the DLC for Mass Effect 3 being on the disc.

Certification does not take six months unless you've really screwed the pooch. Also, the certification process is much shorter for DLC than a fully fledged game, owing to it's size. Large chunks of the certification checklist simply will not apply to DLC and certainly a company with several previous titles on the 360/PS3 that have DLC components are going to have experience to deal with the DLC certification process for both platform holders. This entire version of reality literally rests on the notion that at some point between ME2 and ME3 everyone at bioware forgot how to do their jobs.

And From Ashes is not on the disc, perhaps you're confused by the existence of hooks for from ashes existing on the disk. Which is perfectly sane technical design.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Your coders have all gone on holidays or gone to new projects and that 2 month time frame really isn't enough to get a good quality DLC made and then also certified by the platform holders. It's simple logistics.

New projects, like "from ashes"? And it's not simple logistics - it's an assertion predicated on what appears to be very shoddy underlying knowledge.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a whole lot of work there. If I was a developer then the most cost effective and clever solution was to have it all implimented and ready to go in with the final gold game since there will be less coding and certification headaches. It's the easiest and cleverest way to do it and I can't begrudge them for doing it, I would to.

But your not, so I have no idea why you're trying to argue for a version of events based on understanding that is shoddy at best. You claim to have a science background - you wouldn't accept people with no real science background making arguments about scientific topics based on "what makes sense" to them, why in the hell are you so intent on trying to do that here?

hooradiation · 24-04-2012 3:19pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

That's funny because I'm Certain you took it as an insult rather than a ribbing now

I'm not concerned with your intent, to be quite honest. So quite how you want to claim you meant it is irrelevant.

degrassinoel · 24-04-2012 3:28pm

hooradiation wrote: »

I'm not concerned with your intent, to be quite honest. So quite how you want to claim you meant it is irrelevant.

Need a hug?

Retr0gamer · 24-04-2012 3:41pm

gizmo wrote: »

It's not really a shoddy business practice unless the final game is worse off due to the exclusion of said content though.

It doesn't sit right with me but it's a fact of game development now and I can live with it if it doesn't make the final produt any worse, which is something I'm not arguing about at all.

gizmo wrote: »

Depends on the company, the team, the game and the content. If we're dealing in absolutes then you're incorrect to assume it isn't or can't be done. You recognise the fact that the art staff would be somewhat idle in this period but what about the designers, specifically those who specialise in level design and scripting?

If you want to focus on From Ashes then, using your logic, how can you explain the split in content between that which was on the disc and the 600-odd megs of content which had to be downloaded afterwards?

Designers who deal with scripting and level design would not be twiddling their thumbs during crunch time. I'd like to see one that decided to 'work to rule' at this time and still has a job. These guys will know code and will be heavily involved in QA and coding in the end process. I've not heard any accounts of anybody but the art guys not being up to their eyes during crunch time although I'm open to examples.

As for the 600meg split in content, I guess with DLC and patches most developers aren't getting their holidays after the game goes gold anymore.

hooradiation wrote: »

What is it that makes you think artists can't create art assets without the aid of developers? What is it that makes you think the system for integrating the DLC would be "a nightmare" given that ME3 is built on the ME2 engine, which had support for this? And most importantly why are you confusing the time before content complete with the time after it's been submitted for certification??

Making levels isn't a case of modelling stuff in maya and plonking it into the game engine and magically stuff like QA testing and game balance magically happen. It's a team endeavour and if your team is art guys it's not happening. Also plonking the DLC into an existing engine doesn't magically make it work and also work on the platform holders network without any security holes, which need to be tested for. There's a whole lot more that goes into it

hooradiation wrote: »

Certification does not take six months unless you've really screwed the pooch. Also, the certification process is much shorter for DLC than a fully fledged game, owing to it's size. Large chunks of the certification checklist simply will not apply to DLC and certainly a company with several previous titles on the 360/PS3 that have DLC components are going to have experience to deal with the DLC certification process for both platform holders. This entire version of reality literally rests on the notion that at some point between ME2 and ME3 everyone at bioware forgot how to do their jobs.

Certification might not take that long then. Still it's not exactly an entirely painless process. I doubt it takes a few hours.

hooradiation wrote: »

New projects, like "from ashes"? And it's not simple logistics - it's an assertion predicated on what appears to be very shoddy underlying knowledge.

I still don't believe 2 months is enough time to create such a significant piece of content and it's QA.

hooradiation wrote: »

But your not, so I have no idea why you're trying to argue for a version of events based on understanding that is shoddy at best. You claim to have a science background - you wouldn't accept people with no real science background making arguments about scientific topics based on "what makes sense" to them, why in the hell are you so intent on trying to do that here?

I'm just going on the evidence that I have and waiting for a better explanation of events. I don't suppose you have much experience with the game development process? I'd just find it very odd and not good business practice if EA/Bioware didn't develop the DLC in tandem, saving time, money resources and headaches. It would be bad development and business practice if they didn't. I can't see how it would make sense the other way but I'm open to learning.

Mass Effect 3: The Ending(s) [** Spoilers **]

Comments

Mass Effect 3: The Ending(s) [ Spoilers ]