Bethesda's epic sci-fi RPG is here, and it's a big one. From shipbuilding to exploring the surface of Mars, our thoughts so far.
Starfield Review... In Progress
The first trailer for Grand Theft Auto 6 is finally here.
Grand Theft Auto 6 Trailer
We take an in-depth look at Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora and tell you why it should be heavily on your radar!
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora - a Deep-Dive into its Potential
Range-wise, the ROG Rapture GT6 is phenomenal, and it's ideal for all gaming and non-gaming-related tasks.
ASUS ROG Rapture GT6 WiFi 6 Mesh System Review
Post by Dan @ 12:21am 06/04/12 | 72 Comments
Following up on the comments of BioWare CEO Ray Muzyka a couple of weeks ago, the beleaguered RPG developer has now more formally announced plans to placate fans who were disappointed with Mass Effect 3's controversial ending that has been criticised as being both lacking in variety and detached and inconsistent with the rest of the game (thanks Midda).

BioWare's hopeful solution will be new Extended Cut DLC -- a free (perculiarly with a two year expiry clause) downloadable content pack that will provide "additional cinematic scenes and epilogue scenes" and make the ambigious promise of "more closure with even more context and clarity".
"We are all incredibly proud of Mass Effect 3 and the work done by Casey Hudson and team," said Dr. Ray Muzyka, Co-Founder of BioWare and General Manager of EA's BioWare Label. "Since launch, we have had time to listen to the feedback from our most passionate fans and we are responding. With the Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut we think we have struck a good balance in delivering the answers players are looking for while maintaining the team's artistic vision for the end of this story arc in the Mass Effect universe."
A specific release date for the Extended Cut has yet to be revealed.



mass effect 3biowareea
Buy now from Green Man Gaming Only GBP£9.99!
(compare all prices)





Latest Comments
Midda
Posted 12:45pm 06/4/12
Yeah, but that just starts the arguments (not that I'm opposed to a good argument, how else am I supposed to amuse myself on the internet!) about where the ending actually starts.

Spoilers in this wall of text.

I don't think that's what people are debating about. From everything I've heard, nobody disliked the game itself, in fact, pretty much everyone loved it. It surpassed my expectations, I really enjoyed it, and you're right, the whole game did feel like it was wrapping up the trilogy. It's that last 5 minutes that everyone complains about, and with good reason. It was s***. I actually bought the game after the outrage, fully intending to view the ending with an optimistic outlook, but even then, that last 5 minutes was a disappointment. All of that stuff you were talking about, like curing the genophage, brokering peace between the Quarians and the Geth, between the Turians and the Krogan, it all counted toward nothing in the end.

For any other game, I would have just thought "hmm, well that was a s*** ending. Oh well," but BioWare have spent the last 5+ years touting about how the choices you make and the relationships you build will ultimately decide the fate of the galaxy. That's why people spent 100+ hours building relationships, building their reputation and listening to all of that awesomely detailed information in the Codex. And it all felt worth it, until that last 5 minutes. Then it felt like a lot of it was a waste of time.

I'm a bit pessimistic about this DLC pack, I'm not really expecting it to address what I disliked about the ending. I think it's because all 3 of the "different" endings pretty much left the universe they'd created in a worthless pile of rubble. No Mass Relays means no more travel around the galaxy. What's the Mass Effect universe without travelling around the galaxy? And why did synthetics like the Geth and EDI have to be destroyed? They proved Starkid wrong in that they never rebelled against their creators, and were completely willing to work together with organics. The whole premise of the story has been about organics vs. synthetics, so working with the Geth and helping EDI to build her own life and free will really felt like it was playing directly into a solution to the story's big issue.

I'm rambling a bit now, so I'll stop. Hopefully they prove me wrong and the extended cut makes it all come together. All in all, it was still a fun game, and I want to play more of it.
Khel
Posted 12:51pm 06/4/12
I think it would have been a better ending if there actually was no explanation for why the Reapers are doing what they're doing. They're incredibly ancient, incredibly advanced synthetic lifeforms that just f*****g organics and want to wipe them all out. They were scarier imo when their motives were unknown and unknowable. Its like movies like the first Alien, the monster is much scarier when you don't know what it is or what it looks like or what its going to do, once you know all that, it takes some of the sting out of it.
Midda
Posted 01:02pm 06/4/12
Oh yeah, I'm fine with that. While it might be an interesting story for BioWare to tell one day, I don't think this trilogy really needs any more of explanation for the motives of the Reapers. I was more interested in the actual characters and races I'd built relationships with over the course of the series.

EDIT: Omg, Dan stole my thread!
Dan
Posted 01:08pm 06/4/12
Not sure if I linked this before, but here is one of the best (most detailed and rational) critical articles on the ending's problems : http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right

it raises 5 pretty distinct and reasonable points but I think number 2 is the one that cheesed me the most.

Like Midda, I also reached the end well after the rest of the Internet exploded about it and I was also in the "oh, they're just being silly, it can't be that disappointing" camp, but was moderately converted after experiencing it myself.

I'm going to speculate that there is some internal conflict between the developers happening too that is the real driving force behind this update. If it was purely for the audience, it's hard to understand why they would cave on it, so I reckon there's probably some truth to the rumours of other staff being as unfulfilled with Hudson's ending as we were.
EDIT: Omg, Dan stole my thread!
Yep, sorry dude. Wanted to news it and it's unfortunately the most elegant way to do that. Gave you an achievement though :)
Khel
Posted 01:33pm 06/4/12
That was actually really well written, even though I don't agree with all of it, its probably the most rational ME3 ending argument I've read from that side.
Midda
Posted 01:37pm 06/4/12
Yeah, that article was really good, and more elegantly described in point number 2 what I was talking about in my ramble.
Zen Apathy
Posted 01:44pm 06/4/12
I think it would have been a better ending if there actually was no explanation for why the Reapers are doing what they're doing. They're incredibly ancient, incredibly advanced synthetic lifeforms that just f*****g organics and want to wipe them all out. They were scarier imo when their motives were unknown and unknowable. Its like movies like the first Alien, the monster is much scarier when you don't know what it is or what it looks like or what its going to do, once you know all that, it takes some of the sting out of it.

Bingo! The Reaper explination is rushbish and stupid. The game builds up to an epic climax and pulls that s*** out. Not to mention playing through it is painfully boring it should have just been one long cutscene with dialog choices not that the choices matter. It's worse than Deus Ex:HR's ending at least if I want to see a different one I can just reload to right before it. The Fallout 3 games had better endings and they were just still pictures with narations. The rest of the game was far better, one of the best moments was when my actions accidentally killed all the Quarians.
BladeRunner
Posted 01:54pm 06/4/12
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/edit?pli=1

I feel that they should scrap the current endings or make them make a lot more sense. Adding more endings would also be good. Since this is the last Mass Effect game with Shepard in it, they might as well make it the best one.
BladeRunner
Posted 10:36pm 06/4/12
No new endings, just some tweaks and more dialog and cut scenes. :(

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/04/there-will-be-no-new-mass-effect-3-endings-just-a-tweaked-one/

My faith in bioware will be lost unless this tweaking is massive and fills holes and tries to make sense of what they have done. I doubt it will but we can only hope.
Crakaveli
Posted 10:39pm 06/4/12
fyi khel, it's ok to hate on a game.

just sayin'
Khel
Posted 10:51pm 06/4/12
No new endings, just some tweaks and more dialog and cut scenes


Good, thats the best way to do it imo. New endings or changing the ending would just muddy the waters at this point, and do more damage than good to Bioware's artistic integrity. I'd be happy enough with the current ending if they just explain what the hell is going on with the Normandy

fyi khel, it's ok to hate on a game.


Yeah, I don't care if people want to hate it, its just annoying when its baseless, crazy fanboy hate. That link Dan posted hates on it, but it was still a really good read and raised a lot of good points. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop defending it though :)
Midda
Posted 10:58pm 06/4/12
Well that's disappointing. I doubt they're going to address many of the issues. Describing what the Normandy was doing at the end will barely scratch the surface of why the ending was so s***. Yeah, it'd be nice to know what was going on there, but the choices you have on top of the Citadel still seem so ridiculously out of touch with what the rest of the game was about.

I'm not going to hold my breath.
Khel
Posted 11:09pm 06/4/12
Realistically, the only choice that stood out for me as really out of place was the control one. I mean, you spend most of the game fighting against the Illusive Man's plan to control them, why would Shepherd then go and try and control them? The other two made sense to me though, the Synthesis one being the ultimate evolution of the whole "Unity" theme and synthetics and organics living together, and the destroy ending makes sense cos its about making the reapers blow up, which is the traditional military solution to problems, while at the same time pushing the sacrifice theme that had been prevalent throughout the game.

But yeah, the control one was pretty whack, that didn't make any sense to me.
Midda
Posted 11:19pm 06/4/12
Could you explain the synthesis ending to me? Because I still don't understand what they actually meant by it. Isn't merging organic and synthetic life pretty much exactly what the Reapers were doing to organic races anyway? They built Reapers out of the organic species they harvested. Or is it a future like the Strogg from Quake? It still seems very vague and poorly thought out to me, and I can't find a proper explanation for it online.
BladeRunner
Posted 11:51pm 06/4/12
One thing annoys me is that the mass relays blow up regardless, right? Hard to have a new ME game after 3, post Shepard decision. Sort of limits the possibilities, No species has Citadel/Relay tech level to rebuild them. Yeah the destruction ending makes the most sense out of the 3.

Synth one does not.....how...does...it work. Do Geth and reapers magically fuse with all organic life? How will reproduction of organic things work? Will all living cells have biomechanical parts?

Control, why would Shep be given control of the reapers? Give that much power to someone would be crazy.

What would make sense.
Destruction of the reapers, reapers only. Still massive causalities for everyone. Countless worlds and colonies burned to the ground. decades of rebuilding and cleaning up. [this would be canon ending. Leaves options open for video games after the reapers are destroyed. Relays/Citadel still intact.]

Let the 50,000 year cycle continue. All sentient beings harvested/killed so that the next cycle can start. True reaper ending.[reminds me of the matrix movies. Relays/Citadel still intact.]

All sentient beings, Geth included, destroyed as are the reapers. [non-sentient creatures can evolve as they would with out interference from the now destroyed sentients. Humans, Asari etc. Any creatures that evolve don't have to worry about reapers.]

Geth survive, everyone else dies. [Relays/Citadel still intact]
Khel
Posted 12:03am 07/4/12
Synth one does not.....how...does...it work. Do Geth and reapers magically fuse with all organic life? How will reproduction of organic things work? Will all living cells have biomechanical parts?


As to exactly *how* it works, who knows, its super advanced technology nobody understands. How do mass relays work? How do prothean beacons work? How does any reaper tech work? All through the series that technology has been portrayed as so advanced it may as well be magic, so I don't think its really fair to start looking for scientific explanations in the last 10 minutes of the trilogy.

As for what is happening, the way I understood it, its rewriting the base genetic code of everything and creating a new type of lifeform that is synthetic and organic all in one. So not synthetics with organic parts or organics with synthetic parts, just a new type of life that all shares the same base genetic makeup which is an amalgamation of the two. Essentially the same theme they played out in BSG with the baby that Helo had with the Cylon chick, its just the Mass Effect version involved a magical starchild and a "Change the galaxy" button instead of organics and synthetics f*****g to make babies.

It was done in a bit of a hamfisted and rushed way, but thats what I took away from it anyway, thats what I figured it was going for. I mean, all up, it seemed like the "best" ending to me, it seems to be the one that kills the fewest people, and leaves things in the best situation (relative to the other endings). The "destroy" ending seems to often be referred to as the "good" ending or "perfect" ending, but it doesn't seem very perfect to me, all sorts of s*** gets f***ed up in that ending. I guess the only thing that makes people claim its the "good" ending is cos theres a brief split second cutscene implying Shepherd didn't die, but that in itself makes absolutely no sense anyway. Hopefully thats another thing that flesh out in this DLC.
Khel
Posted 12:09am 07/4/12
And yeah, I was never expecting Mass Effect games set after Mass Effect 3 anyway, they always said, even before the first game came out, that the story was a trilogy and then it was over, so I don't think they really had to go out of their way to leave it open for sequels.

I mean, Mass Effect is hugely popular, so I'm sure they'll find some way to keep making Mass Effect games, but my bet would be they'll set them before the current Mass Effect series, cos theres still lots of s*** that happened in the past that they could make games about. The Rachni war and Krogan Rebellion spring to mind, and theres been all sorts of wars and stuff with the Batarians as well. I'm sure theres more they could do, or more backstory they could make up.
Crakaveli
Posted 02:09am 07/4/12


1. organics and synthetics dont get along.
2. make synthetics to destroy organics
3. ????
4. end
ravn0s
Posted 08:35am 07/4/12
As for what is happening, the way I understood it, its rewriting the base genetic code of everything and creating a new type of lifeform that is synthetic and organic all in one.


space magic!
deadlyf
Posted 09:52am 07/4/12
Yeah I think the reason I didn't mind the ending is because a) my expectations were extremely low and b) I chose the synthetic meld ending which to me seemed the only logical choice.

My expectations were never high because I was never honestly invested in the sci-fi of Mass Effect to begin with. The idea that Synthetics will attack their creators is one of the oldest and heavily flawed sci-fi mechanism out there but it didn't stop me from enjoying Terminator or The Matrix. Mysterious technology that no one understands yet we are able to understand parts of it so we can utilise or replicate it is another heavily flawed mechanism yet I still liked Star Gate.

Every race only had one gender until the last game and then they still shared the same model didn't help with my investment in the Mass Effect universe. But to me the story was about Shepard and the people in your crew and that was done pretty well IMO.

I admit there is some wtf at the end but other than dead people getting off the Normandy (seriously, beam me up Garus?), as a sci-fi ending I didn't think it was really out of place or anything.
Midda
Posted 10:46am 07/4/12
As for what is happening, the way I understood it, its rewriting the base genetic code of everything and creating a new type of lifeform that is synthetic and organic all in one. So not synthetics with organic parts or organics with synthetic parts, just a new type of life that all shares the same base genetic makeup which is an amalgamation of the two. Essentially the same theme they played out in BSG with the baby that Helo had with the Cylon chick, its just the Mass Effect version involved a magical starchild and a "Change the galaxy" button instead of organics and synthetics f*****g to make babies.

But the Synthesis ending still showed Joker and your crew getting off the Normandy and EDI in her synthetic body, all seemingly unchanged. It seems pretty ambiguous to me. This is one of the provided conclusions to a huge trilogy, it doesn't seem like something that should be damn well explained, not left open to interpretation.

"Here, press this button to change the galaxy, although we won't actually explain what it does. Thanks for playing, and be sure to buy our upcoming DLC!"
deadlyf
Posted 10:52am 07/4/12
But the Synthesis ending still showed Joker and your crew getting off the Normandy and EDI in her synthetic body, all seemingly unchanged.
You mean apart from all the circuitry shown in the plants and Joker looking all Illusive Man?

I only did the whole merge ending but I assumed EDI was going to die if you destroy all Reapers as they implied that all synthetic stuff would stop working, was that not the case?
ravn0s
Posted 11:01am 07/4/12
I only did the whole merge ending but I assumed EDI was going to die if you destroy all Reapers as they implied that all synthetic stuff would stop working, was that not the case?


the destroy ending only showed the reapers dying. you don't see the geth or edi die.

the destroy ending is considered the best ending because it's the only ending where shep can survive.
Midda
Posted 12:03pm 07/4/12
You mean apart from all the circuitry shown in the plants and Joker looking all Illusive Man?

Just watched the video again on YouTube, I didn't even notice that initially.
Zen Apathy
Posted 12:07pm 07/4/12
Actually I don't hate the endings, I hate the "I made synthetics to kill you all every 50K years so you won't be killed by synthetics" and how it was pulled out of their arse 10ish minutes before the end. The Normandy popping up with my squad members crashed on some convenient tropic paradise did seem odd but I don't hate that.
Mantorok
Posted 12:40pm 07/4/12
I don't get why they had that confrontation with The Illusive Man and Anderson beforehand. They could've set it in the room with the Starchild to give things a bit more tension.
Outlaw
Posted 01:13pm 07/4/12
ME3 ending needed Guiles theme music
Khel
Posted 01:25pm 07/4/12
Actually I don't hate the endings, I hate the "I made synthetics to kill you all every 50K years so you won't be killed by synthetics" and how it was pulled out of their arse 10ish minutes before the end.


Yeah, it was pretty rushed, it was like they went "Oh s***, we only have 10 minutes left and still haven't explained everything. Quick! Introduce an all-knowing god type character that can explain everything to the player."

I still think it would have been better without that explanation jammed in, but as I understood it its more like "Well if we just let organics and synthetics run rampant, synthetics are going to completely wipe out organics, so every so often we'll come and prune back the organics so they pose less of a threat and the synthetics don't feel the need to go and wipe out all organics everywhere." Cos the reapers only harvest the advanced races, not all the races, they leave the other less advanced races to evolve (like the race of dudes the old Shadow Broker comes from).

Its pretty flimsy though and theres too many holes in it that bug me, so I wish they'd just left the explanation out altogether and left the reapers as big, evil, ancient f*****s with unknowable motives. I mean, every 50,000 years the Reapers prune the organics right? They don't prune synthetics though, so what happened to all the synthetic races from the previous cycles? I mean, the Prothean dude says there was a race of synthetics like the Geth in his cycle, and that each cycle essentially repeats the same pattern so its safe to assume there would be a similar synthetic race in every cycle. Reapers harvest the advanced organic races to stop them wiping out the synthetics (or to stop the synthetics saying "F*** this s***" and wiping out all the oganics), but wheres all the synthetic races from previous cycles? Or even signs they ever existed?
parabol
Posted 01:34pm 07/4/12
"I made synthetics to kill you all every 50K years so you won't be killed by synthetics" and how it was pulled out of their arse 10ish minutes before the end

It's a shame anyone who has watched Babylon 5 had much of the game spoiled from near the beginning:

Main character is a human male commander: John Shepard | John Sheridan
Game/show centres around a diplomatic space station: The Citadel | Babylon 5
Long-distance transport by: Mass Relays | Jumpgates
Unknown 'ancient' enemy from the edge of space: The Reapers | The Shadow
Ancient ally who fought the enemy: Protheans | Vorlons
Purpose of enemy: cyclic killing (every 50K years) | cyclic killing (every 1K years)
Main weapon against enemy: energy from the Crucible | telepathic blockage
Main character has a custom-built ship using 'ancient' technology: Normandy | White-star
Main character dies and is resurrected? Yes | Yes

There are some differences, but the similarities are overwhelming.

ravn0s
Posted 01:34pm 07/4/12
i think bioware got their inspiration from this

Khel
Posted 01:44pm 07/4/12
Heh, yeah, it reminded me a lot of Babylon 5 even from the first game. Even when explaining the game to other people who had seen Babylon 5 I'd be like "Theres these aliens called the Reapers, they're basically the Shadows", I didn't mind so much though, cos I really liked Babylon 5.

Difference is the reveal on the motivations behind why the Shadows would come and kill everything (I think it was every 10,000 years wasn't it? Not 1,000) and who they were, was built up to over years of the tv series, and there was plenty of foreshadowing and all that stuff, it wasn't just dumped on the viewer all at the last minute. So I guess while Mass Effect borrowed from Babylon 5 a lot, it probably could have been better served by borrowing even more.
Zen Apathy
Posted 04:51pm 07/4/12
Yeah, it was pretty rushed, it was like they went "Oh s***, we only have 10 minutes left and still haven't explained everything. Quick! Introduce an all-knowing god type character that can explain everything to the player."
It's the definition of a Deus ex machina.

I still think it would have been better without that explanation jammed in, but as I understood it its more like "Well if we just let organics and synthetics run rampant, synthetics are going to completely wipe out organics, so every so often we'll come and prune back the organics so they pose less of a threat and the synthetics don't feel the need to go and wipe out all organics everywhere." Cos the reapers only harvest the advanced races, not all the races, they leave the other less advanced races to evolve (like the race of dudes the old Shadow Broker comes from).

Its pretty flimsy though and theres too many holes in it that bug me, so I wish they'd just left the explanation out altogether and left the reapers as big, evil, ancient f*****s with unknowable motives. I mean, every 50,000 years the Reapers prune the organics right? They don't prune synthetics though, so what happened to all the synthetic races from the previous cycles? I mean, the Prothean dude says there was a race of synthetics like the Geth in his cycle, and that each cycle essentially repeats the same pattern so its safe to assume there would be a similar synthetic race in every cycle. Reapers harvest the advanced organic races to stop them wiping out the synthetics (or to stop the synthetics saying "F*** this s***" and wiping out all the oganics), but wheres all the synthetic races from previous cycles? Or even signs they ever existed?
I would have prefered they didn't explain it either shame they can't un-explain it either.
Khel
Posted 02:36pm 07/4/12
They should have learnt from George Lucas and Midichlorians that some things are just better left unexplained
Midda
Posted 02:52pm 07/4/12
I just watched the new episode of Community, and I think the guy who voiced Admiral Anderson narrated the episode.
Mantorok
Posted 03:10pm 07/4/12
Yeah, it was Keith David.
Dan
Posted 09:46pm 07/4/12
Yeah, it was Keith David.
Heh yeah, I picked it straight away too. But mostly because of years of playing Splinter Cell and watching 24.
ravn0s
Posted 10:19pm 07/4/12
keith david wasn't in splinter cell or 24. you're thinking of dennis haysbert.
Crakaveli
Posted 12:15am 08/4/12
Actually I don't hate the endings, I hate the "I made synthetics to kill you all every 50K years so you won't be killed by synthetics" and how it was pulled out of their arse 10ish minutes before the end.


and fanboys still defend the endings, lolol.
Khel
Posted 03:30am 08/4/12
I defend it mostly because the people who hate on it are hating on it for stupid reasons, or like in that bit you quoted, they employ a Reductio Ad Absurdem approach to make it seem like hating the ending is the only logical action. I'll defend a position I don't even agree with if I feel an argument is being unfairly stacked, just can't help myself.
Midda
Posted 11:15am 08/4/12
I just came across this on NeoGAF. It does make it sound as though BioWare aren't actually dumb, and that the ending really was just poorly, poorly explained.

Okay, here is what I asked Patrick Weekes, and his answers as best as I can remember them. I've paraphrased but I'm doing my best to stick to what he said rather than introduce any interpretation.

THESE ARE NOT DIRECT QUOTES.

-Is there still a setting to explore after the ending? Is everything ruined?

The setting is definitely not ruined. We still have a big, lively galaxy.

-Will long-distance superluminal travel still be possible post-Ending? (will Tali or Wrex or Garrus see their homeworlds again? Will everyone starve?)

Galactic civilization will rebuild. The mass relays were not necessary for interstellar flight. Remember, what does it say in the Codex about the speed of ships? That's right, 12 lightyears per (day? hour? minute?). And that's only the cruising speed, not the maximum speed.

People have never needed to research basic FTL improvements before because they have mass relays. With the relays gone, new technology will increase that speed. Additionally, the element zero cores of the dead/controlled Reapers can be used to improve FTL drives. Starflight will continue using conventional FTL.

-Why did Joker leave Shep behind?

Joker would never abandon Shep without a good reason. Hopefully this will be clear in the Expanded Cut.

-Why can EDI survive the Destroy ending?

We argued a lot about this, I said that she was made of Reapertech and should therefore be destroyed, but (unclear, don't remember - wish I'd been able to ask a followup as his response doesn't make much sense)

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive. You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived.

-Is it better for Kelly Chambers if we talk her into suicide?

No, see above.

-Who wrote the death of Joker's sister?

I did! We intentionally did not connect the dots. We were very interested to see how fast gamers figured it out.

-Whose idea was it to make the Rayya fall out of the sky if you destroy the Quarian fleet?

Someone in the audio department, it was brilliant.

-Did the mass relays pull an Arrival and go supernova?

No, they didn't. (i'm paraphrasing here, please don't interpret this too hard) They overloaded, they didn't rupture. We really didn't mean to imply that the whole galaxy had been destroyed. People interpreted the ending in ways we really didn't expect.

(Mr. Weekes dropped a lot of hints that he really didn't like the ending. He also said something that was almost 100% verbatim from the Penny Arcade Forum post often attributed to him)

-Why did Legion pull a 180 from his Mass Effect 2 philosophy?

He and the Geth were backed into a corner. They'd been made a lot dumber by the attack on the Dyson swarm. There was no other choice for Geth survival.

-What was up with the Rachni story? Why did we get railroaded?

Welcome to game development. In some games (Alpha Protocol) they make a bold choice where some decisions can knock entire missions out of the story. At BioWare, we never want people to be locked out of content due to a decision several games ago. We just didn't have the resources to do an alternate for the Rachni mission, so we decided that the Rachni mission could occur whether or not players saved the Queen.

-Why didn't (X squadmate from ME2) return?

There was a very ugly month of development where we fought out who would return. We knew we had to have a smaller cast so we could fit in more squad banter. Eventually we decided to bring Garrus and Tali back, so they could be squadmates in all three games. We also knew we'd have Vega in order for new players to have someone dumber than they were.

I was very resentful of Vega at first because I thought he was taking a slot that could've gone to a ME2 character, but he grew on me.

-Why did EDI have cameltoe?

We don't get a lot of feedback from the art department but (unclear, wish I remembered this better )

Lots of discussion about how he was uncomfortable doing Pinocchio stories for both Legion and EDI because 'EDI was fine, she was an AI, she was cool - do we really need her to turn into Commander Data? We had seven seasons of Data, that was enough.'

-Why did you write Pinocchio stories for all the synthetic characters?

See above

-What was up with the Human Reaper in ME2? Why did it look so dumb?

We wanted to use the Suicide Mission to show several steps of the Reaper development process, from human reaper embryo all the way to cuttlefish. But the mission grew too complicated so it was cut for time.

-Do the Reapers really only generate one capital ship per cycle? How do they ever break even?

Well, we never totally pinned that down. But this cycle was really anomalous. They don't normally take any capital-size Reaper losses at all.

-What was up with Kai Leng? How do you feel about him?

We really wanted to have a recurring antagonist for Shep, a 'Darth Maul' (his words). But I feel like there was some definite conflict between cutscene and gameplay there, and I think it's something we have to work on.

'He was a great antagonist in the books'

-Why did we only get top and bottom dialogue choices, no middle?

Part of it was resources. Part of it is that Mass Effect 3 is a war story and it's really hard for Shep to feel middling about the Reapers.

-How did YOU feel about the ending?

(I didn't ask this, but he seems to have gone to GREAT lengths to think ways around a lot of stuff the ending implied.)

Why no female (alien X?)

Resource limitations. They have a very strict budget for how many different characters they can use in a given area. Some are basically free - if you have human males you have Batarians because they're humans with funny heads, if you have human females you have asari, etc.

Where was Harbinger? Can we ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL of him?

I definitely want more closure on Harbinger. That'd be hilarious. Stop punching yourself, Harbinger.

How did the Reapers storm the Citadel? Why didn't they shut down the relays as per their original plan once they had control?

Originally we planned to have a cutscene of Reapers taking over, Reaper monsters punching buttons, et cetera. But we cut it, partially for resource reasons and partly because it disrupted the pacing.

The Reapers didn't shut down the mass relays because the Keepers interfered with that. (I wish I could've asked a follow-up here, it doesn't make much sense.)

Why don't Ken and Gabby have more dialogue?

They actually have a bunch more on disk, but we somehow introduced a bug where their dialogue is tied to your approval level with Ash. If Ash has low approval, or isn't present, most of Ken and Gabby's dialogue won't play.
Khel
Posted 12:30pm 08/4/12
Who the hell are Ken and Gabby?
Zen Apathy
Posted 12:31pm 08/4/12
Perhaps Boiware should have spent more time making the game they wanted then sending copies into space via weather balloon.
Zen Apathy
Posted 12:44pm 08/4/12
Who the hell are Ken and Gabby?

The two engineers that worked for Ceberus on the Normandy 2 in ME2.
Khel
Posted 01:07pm 08/4/12
Oh, that'd be why I never met them, my whole crew died in ME2, got melted by the collectors after they were kidnapped
Midda
Posted 03:16pm 08/4/12
You probably met them in ME2 though. They had dialogue and side-quests in ME2. Ken is the dude with the Scottish accent on the engineering deck.

I lost the whole crew in my first playthrough of ME2, but I had already completed everything by the time the Collectors came and kidnapped the crew on my second playthrough, so I went straight there and everyone survived. If you do any missions after they're taken, you start losing crew members.

The fact that the universe can continue to function after the destruction of the Mass Relays is good news to me, I feel less annoyed by the ending now. If the other races (including the Geth) can be saved despite what the stupid glowy kid said, then I'll be happy if this DLC just adds some closure.
Khel
Posted 05:26pm 08/4/12
You probably met them in ME2 though.


Probably, but either my memory is s*** or they just weren't very memorable (or a bit of both), but I can't really recall them.
BladeRunner
Posted 06:20pm 08/4/12
Sounds un-finished to me. Just pull some crap out of their arse and sell it as DLC later on. Also I don't think they should hide behinde "artistic integrity". They made a stuff up, not a huge one but not a tiny one either. They should admit it and try to remedy their errors. They need to re-do the endings and add in new ones as well as put in things that there missing Such as helping Aria take back Omega.

It is also hard to see just how much the things you do in ME3 contribute to the overall war effort. Would be good have a few mission fighting the reapers on earth with the Salarian Special Tasks group if you get them on your side, Also Eclipse and Blue Suns. You did a mission to get them...but you never see them.
Midda
Posted 06:56pm 08/4/12
Why is getting Omega back to Aria any concern of Shepherd's?
ravn0s
Posted 07:03pm 08/4/12
she will give you control of the 3 mercenaries groups from omega if you help her out.
Whoop
Posted 07:55pm 08/4/12
Mass Effect 3: Garrus Shoots First
Is this something that's actually in ME3 (never played it) or another star wars reference that's suddenly become popular again? I've been seeing people on about this line a LOT recently in MW3. Like that whole arrow to the knee thing everyone was suddenly saying, now everyone's going OMG I SO TOTALLY SHOT FIRST.
Dazhel
Posted 09:13pm 08/4/12
It's just a star wars reference regarding unnecessary edits but I haven't finished ME3 either so who knows.

From what I've been able to piece together of the ME3 ending though, is that even though the entree and main were delicious, in the last 10 minutes Shepard eats a cupcake for the dessert but the fanboys didn't get to pick whether the icing was Paragon or Renegade flavour and that made them upset.
Eorl
Posted 09:19pm 08/4/12
Thank god I don't enjoy this series. Sounds like a right pain in the ass with developers offering choice then taking it away.
Khel
Posted 09:26pm 08/4/12
I'm not suprised the endings weren't open ended though, I just wish they'd fleshed things out more and made them more complete. I mean, Mass Effect has always been a heavily, heavily story driven series, its not an open-ended sandbox. Yeah theres choices within that narrative structure, but full control of the story has never been given to the players, so I wasn't expecting it at the end.

Would have been nice if the alliances you made and the stuff you did throughout the game mattered more in the lead up to the ending, like Bladerunner was saying, having the Salarian STG guys helping you out on Earth or whatever would have been a nice touch, but I always expected the ending to be told in a very scripted way, cos at its core, thats what Mass Effect is, its always been about Bioware telling a story. Just wish they told it better and it didn't feel so rushed :(
deadlyf
Posted 09:31pm 08/4/12
It's just a star wars reference regarding unnecessary edits but I haven't finished ME3 either so who knows.

From what I've been able to piece together of the ME3 ending though, is that even though the entree and main were delicious, in the last 10 minutes Shepard eats a cupcake for the dessert but the fanboys didn't get to pick whether the icing was Paragon or Renegade flavour and that made them upset.
Dude you should not be in this thread.
Mosfx
Posted 07:50am 14/4/12
Finished this last night, man what a let down.

I planned on replaying ME1/2/3 again as a Renegade Female as opposed to a Paragon Male, but I don't think I will now mainly because the ending will be the same.
Midda
Posted 10:59am 14/4/12
I replayed ME2 again after finished ME3. They're still fun games, despite the ending, and I assume you'll want to see what BioWare do with the Extended Cut, so playing through again isn't going to be a lost cause.
Khel
Posted 12:10pm 14/4/12
I planned on replaying ME1/2/3 again as a Renegade Female as opposed to a Paragon Male, but I don't think I will now mainly because the ending will be the same.


I don't get that mentality though, soooooooooo much of the games will change, and you'll see so much new content, and new choices, and events will go in different ways, but you don't want to do that because the last 10 minutes of the last game will be the same?

Heres another spoiler, no matter what you do, the start of ME2 is the same as well, Shepherd dies and the Normandy is destroyed.
Crakaveli
Posted 12:22pm 14/4/12
Do you work for bioware?
Khel
Posted 12:26pm 14/4/12
Nah, I just don't like illogical arguments
Mosfx
Posted 07:44pm 14/4/12
I don't get that mentality though, soooooooooo much of the games will change, and you'll see so much new content, and new choices, and events will go in different ways, but you don't want to do that because the last 10 minutes of the last game will be the same?

Heres another spoiler, no matter what you do, the start of ME2 is the same as well, Shepherd dies and the Normandy is destroyed.


Don't get me wrong Mass Effect is a fantastic series much better than anything I've played in recent times, I just probably won't see the need to play ME 1/2/3 again as quickly as I thought, perhaps I'll just wait for some DLC before I replay ME3.

I wasn't completely let down by the ending, it'll always be hard for any writer to end a TV/Movie/Book/Game series I was a bit funny with how the Eragon series finished up. I just didn't see the point in trying to get my galactic readiness as close to max as I possibly could because I failed to see what difference it made. I would of been happy just to see how the galaxy was in 100 years from after the Reaper invasion so I could see what my choices did in the long term.

My next ME3 play through will just consist of the main quest line.
Commenting has been locked for this item.
72 Comments
Show