BioWare Knows It Can't Please Everyone

[DEAD34345]

Someone at Bioware must have realised what a giant turd that ending was. I honestly can't bring myself to believe this bullshit about the ending being "their story" that they wanted to make. It fails in the most basic ways, and the way they keep trying to say that we don't get it or something just pisses me off. We hate it not because it wasn't the ending we wanted, but because it was barely an ending at all, and to offer it to us anyway in full knowledge of how unbelievably shoddy it was is borderline offensive. Bioware can do better, hell it did do better both earlier in that very game and in the other games of the series. This time they just didn't try.

I'll get the extended cut in the hopes it might salvage some small aspects of the story, but they're right in saying that it won't please everyone. I doubt it will please many people at all, but if they were really bothered about the public opinions of their ending they should have put some effort into it in the first place.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

The problem is that you have people already angry. It's hard enough winning someone over when they're neutral, but when you have to make up for something like the ending controversy, your only hope is some kind of miracle that makes everyone happy and possibly ends world hunger.

I don't know if it's anger anymore, though, so much as it is disappointment. I mean, sure, you still have folks spitting bile and cursing EA up and down the Internet, but I like to think the decision to actually make the EC in the first place came about because so many people were able to articulate their feelings in a detailed and rational manner rather than blind fury.

(Which doesn't necessarily mean Casey Hudson actually understands the criticism, but that's a can of worms not even the Sonic Screwdriver could open.)

If the EC succeeds, it may just buy back a lot of goodwill that EA and BioWare squandered in April. But if it fails, I honestly think the most reaction you'll see will be quiet dismay. Because if they brought voice actors back, and put together a DLC that's larger than any they've ever done, and made it free for everyone, and yet they still couldn't grasp why the ending doesn't work? Well, what good would anger do then? There'd be nothing else to say, no more reason for discussion.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

Sure, it's possible. But given the serious multiplayer push we've seen and the fact that Jennifer Hale is apparently completely done doing voiceover work as Shepard for ME3, I'm not holding my breath for any non-multiplayer content after this one.

I wouldn't worry - "Witch Hunt" came out nearly a year after "Dragon Age: Origins", and Claudia Black was still there to voice Morrigan...

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

Considering that the original ending before Drew Karpshyn left was rumoured to be completely different and far more in line with the ideas of the series, this whole 'artistic integrity' schtick feels a bit hollow.

Well... here's the thing. Having read the summary of Karpyshyn's original ending, I can see why it would've been problematic from a purely gameplay perspective.

To clarify: as near-universally-reviled as the current ending may be, there's still been plenty of discussion as to which ending makes the most sense for various Shepards. Personally, I'm completely unwilling to consider any ending besides Destroy, regardless of the cost, because I view Control as validating the Illusive Man and Synthesis as validating Saren. But I've read coherent and well-thought-out justifications of these alternatives, and I'm willing to concede that while they could never be "the right choice" for me, they could certainly be that for other players.

But in the original ending, the player would have been faced with an entirely different choice: sacrifice the entirety of humanity to help the Reapers stop the spread of dark energy, or destroy the Reapers and place your trust in the allies you've acquired to solve the problem with you.

And I honestly can't imagine anyone choosing the first option. Not when the entire thrust of the narrative is about the extraordinary things the races of the galaxy can achieve when they work together. What player would willingly concede defeat rather than take on another challenge? That's just not how we're wired as gamers.

 

[WanderingFool]

Oy.

Once more with feeling: this has never been about "pleasing everyone". This is about recognizing that the ending doesn't match the quality of the rest of the game, and taking steps to remedy that. The only way BioWare can actually fail with the Extended Cut is if they don't address the problems that exist within the current framework.

Dont bother repeating that, its been lost in translation for a long time.

PErsonally, I dont care if Bioware comes up with a way to please everyone (I know its impossible), I just want them to please ME to make a ending that makes a lick of sense...

 

[Gizmo1990]

Bioware knows that they cannot please everyone. Based on the last 4-5 months it seems Bioware cannot please ANYONE. Then again the Bioware I knew and loved is gone. Now there is just EA walking around in Biowares gutted skin. Mass Effect 3 was the last Bioware game I take a chance on. Once apon a time I would buy a game because it was made by Bioware, now they have lost a customer and I am guessing many more.

 

[Sartan0]

I am just tired of this whole sad affair. I voted with my dollar and bought other games instead. I am hoping this is the last we have to hear of this.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

You'd be surprised. I'm sure I'm not the only gamer who's as jaded and cynical as high fuck.

Not by a long shot.

The implication with the original ending, I believe, was that the Reapers had a definite way to stop the spread of dark energy, whereas the allies you've acquired do not. Therefore, the original ending would have essentially asked players how much they were willing to gamble: would they preserve the galaxy, at the cost of all higher-function life forms? Or would they risk the entire galaxy on the chance that they could reduce the threat of dark energy, and defeat the reapers?

The problem with that, as I see it, is twofold: first, it undermines player empowerment by creating an obstacle Shepard can't overcome. Granted, you have to suspend disbelief in the first place, but I think that comes with the territory in any game - you take for granted the notion that you're roleplaying an exceptional character, someone who can overcome impossible odds by brute strength, intelligence or sheer cruelty.

By accepting the Reapers' help, you would in fact be admitting defeat - Harbinger was right all along, and you were wrong to oppose the Reapers. In a way, it's as much a nullification of the trilogy as the existing endings: if Shepard had just allowed Sovereign to do its work, the dark energy crisis would have been resolved and the next cycle would have thrived.

That, to me, is a much more interesting dilemma than simply "herp derp, we destroy organics to stop organics being destroyed." Whatever questions the actual ending for ME3 may have wanted to ask were completely undone by the botched, hamfisted execution.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the tragedy of this is that "Mass Effect" could have been remembered as one of the best science-fiction stories of the past decade, and instead it's a punchline for memes and webcomics:

Spoiler

It is never a good idea to try and change a story'd ending at the last minute. Good stories are written with themes and ideas present throughout, and build towards a resolution at the end that serves to underscore these. By changing the ending, you risk undermining everything the themes and subtext in your story have been working for. And in the case of ME3, I would say that's completely true.

I'm in total agreement here. I just think the original ending might have run into very similar resistance, in that it too represents an inversion of the narrative thrust: in the end, Shepard is reduced to passive choices rather than courses of action.

 

[RJ 17]

This may be the first PR Bioware has actually not screwed up in the last 3 months.

Doesn't matter. His every word will be picked over by the vultures, and presented as something negative.

Casey Hudson is a heathen devil sodomite and everyone knows it!!!!

No, really the only thing I hold against the guy is that apparently it was his decision to cut large swathes of the ending out in the first place, leading it to be labled officially "butchered". Bu I didn't look at every word he ever said after the game came out as a slap in the face to the audience (though I could see how some things could be taken that way. ) Beyond that, I was always one of the people who said that I was disappointed (not raging) at the endings, but at the same time I didn't think they were obligated to change them at all.

When was the last time an audience demanded that a book be rewritten because the ending was bad? When was the last time an audience demanded that a movie be remade because they didn't like the ending? When was the last time a book or movie actually WAS remade because of demands from the audience? I submit: never. They go down in history as "A movie with a crap ending" or "A book with a crap ending".

Anyhow, that's beside the point now as they are adding to the ending and, if you ask me, it should satisfy a lot of people. Space Timmy was a jaw-dropping WHAT THE FUCK?! introduction/conversation, but at least for me the biggest problem was what a lot of other people said: "Alright. Shep's gone. I can live with that.....what the fuck happens to everyone else? The quarians and geth? The krogan? The rachni? The rest of the frickin' galaxy? How about Shep's crew itself?"

If this cut sufficiently answers the big "What happens after the war?" questions, then I'll consider it a success.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

When was the last time an audience demanded that a book be rewritten because the ending was bad? When was the last time an audience demanded that a movie be remade because they didn't like the ending? When was the last time a book or movie actually WAS remade because of demands from the audience? I submit: never. They go down in history as "A movie with a crap ending" or "A book with a crap ending".

Two words: test screenings. They don't always work, mind you, but it happens more often than you'd think. "I Am Legend", "Little Shop of Horrors", "Blade Runner", "28 Days Later"... granted, these were all situations where studios intentionally sought out audience feedback before officially releasing the product, but that feedback resulted in significant changes every single time.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

because when you think about the artists and writers - all the people here - they work because they're passionate about games. They're passionate about making a really great experience for players. So when they get constructive feedback, constructive criticism, they're really excited about that."

LOL, it's funny because they didn't have anything to do with the ending.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

"There are some people who just outright rejected the whole concept of the endings, and wanted us to start from scratch and redo everything. And we can't do that because that's not our story;

'Your' story sucks ass. Get it? Stop pretending it doesn't suck or that it's bold and expressive and open to interpretation. The entire internet can see the emperor has no clothes. The entire internet. You can't change peoples' minds by sheer force of will at this point.

What a weird thing to say. What does that even mean? It's like he's trying to take advantage of this ridiculous "it's their story" cop-out.

What excites us is the challenge of learning how people consume our stories, and we're trying new ways of telling stories, so it's a learning process for everybody. And then incorporating that feedback, that's how we make our work better."

The ending to Mass Effect sucked because story telling was given a back seat to marketing, add-on sales and franchising. I don't believe for one moment those responsible for the ending to Mass Effect 3 created what they did for creative reasons or viewed designing the ending as an artistic challenge. I feel like my intelligence is being insulted. I hated the ending of Halo 2, but I didn't feel anywhere near this level indignation. They committed the mortal sin of confusing zero resolution with a cliff-hanger, but I still felt they made an honest effort to provide quality and simply failed... badly. But Mass Effect 3's ending? No way.

Hudson goes on to say how thankful the team at BioWare is for intelligent suggestions from the community. "When things are really constructive like that, even when it's critical, it means a lot to us, because when you think about the artists and writers - all the people here - they work because they're passionate about games. They're passionate about making a really great experience for players. So when they get constructive feedback, constructive criticism, they're really excited about that."

"There's no doubt that there will be a whole new wave of discussion and debate, maybe even controversy. But we didn't do the Extended Cut because we're trying to make everybody happy, make it perfect - we just saw an opportunity to expand on things that we felt could add value to the experience, for those that appreciate it."

I love the use of subtext here. Like, he doesn't actually say gamers are a bunch of whiny, entitled brats. But the suspicious overuse of the word "constructive" in regards to criticism and the condescending tone of these cop-outs like 'we can't make it perfect' and 'we can't please everybody' heavily implies it.

Why can't they stop being condescending jerks? If I bought any other product and was dissatisfied, anybody I talked to about it would apologize and do everything they could to make me happy. Why do game devs get away with this? You think I insult customers at my job and make bullshit excuses? I wish.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

Why can't they stop being condescending jerks? If I bought any other product and was dissatisfied, anybody I talked to about it would apologize and do everything they could to make me happy. Why do game devs get away with this? You think I insult customers at my job and make bullshit excuses? I wish.

Casey Hudson's become one of those people I just tune out, like Peter Molyneux or Bobby Kotick. Best to judge the product on its own merits and not even bother with the PR anymore.

 

[mysecondlife]

"You can never satisfy anyone"

True. but you can always piss everyone off.

Hope its satisfying enough so that we can put this sad affair behind.

 

[OpticalJunction]

Woah they're already sounding apologetic about it. Not a good sign. Even if it's true that some people won't be satisfied, they still should have enough faith in their own product be excited about it. It's kind of like they're bracing themselves for backlash, instead of being simply proud of what they've done.

 

[tmande2nd]

ME3:EC

For when you just need a nice ripe polished turd thrown in your face.

 

[AD-Stu]

and maybe that didn't come across, that those characters still had a future and they had a hope going forward.

[sub][sub]that better mean I'm getting my blue babies.[/sub][/sub]

I'm pretty sure it that comment was actually aimed at the people who were saying "plus the entire universe is f&*ked because no more mass relays so the huge fleets that were above Earth will starve to death because there's no turian food and..."

Though so help me there'll be fist-shaking if they've addressed that but not the obvious questions like what the hell is the Normandy doing running away

 

[Dogstile]

and maybe that didn't come across, that those characters still had a future and they had a hope going forward.

Spoilered for anyone who hasn't played it yet.

Spoiler

Next time, they might want to not let you destroy every Mass Relay in the universe and trap your team on a planet where, depending on what allies are on the ship when it crashes, some of them can't eat.

But I at least appreciate that they're trying.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Considering that the original ending before Drew Karpshyn left was rumoured to be completely different and far more in line with the ideas of the series, this whole 'artistic integrity' schtick feels a bit hollow.

Well... here's the thing. Having read the summary of Karpyshyn's original ending, I can see why it would've been problematic from a purely gameplay perspective.

To clarify: as near-universally-reviled as the current ending may be, there's still been plenty of discussion as to which ending makes the most sense for various Shepards. Personally, I'm completely unwilling to consider any ending besides Destroy, regardless of the cost, because I view Control as validating the Illusive Man and Synthesis as validating Saren. But I've read coherent and well-thought-out justifications of these alternatives, and I'm willing to concede that while they could never be "the right choice" for me, they could certainly be that for other players.

But in the original ending, the player would have been faced with an entirely different choice: sacrifice the entirety of humanity to help the Reapers stop the spread of dark energy, or destroy the Reapers and place your trust in the allies you've acquired to solve the problem with you.

And I honestly can't imagine anyone choosing the first option. Not when the entire thrust of the narrative is about the extraordinary things the races of the galaxy can achieve when they work together. What player would willingly concede defeat rather than take on another challenge? That's just not how we're wired as gamers.

I could get behind that ending, and it was hinted in ME2 at least. While the point you bring up of the apparent lack of choice, there would be people that would choose being Reaper chow. Besides with most choosing the 'do this together' option there would be an easy way to continue the ME universe storywise, instead of the current 'everyone is screwed short to mid term.'

 

[Arakasi]

I think the more appropriate title for this thread would be 'BioWare knows it can't please anyone'.

This is what happens when you forsake your fans BioWare.