Escapist Podcast: Bonus: Mass Effect 3 With Spoilers Part 3

[Rainboq]

-snip-

Two questions for you, and the rest of the podcast crew if they want to chime in.

One: Did you ever want to have Blasto: The Hanar Specter, or someone similar as a squadmate?

Two: Did you do the Elcor ambassador's mission? If so, would you have liked to see Elcor in combat/have an Elcor squadmate?

Also, just a comment, Mass Effect 3 strikes me as a game that run out of time and resources as they neared the end of production, so the ending was probably rushed and a lot of planned content may have been lopped off.

 

[Pontifex]

Some comments

Part of the issue was that they retconned you in to the corner by removing stuff like the Thranix cannons (beam weapons) and the armour etc so that you didn't have as much of a chance, despite them not really meaning that anyone was going to one shot a reaper.

Thanix weapons were present, they're just not effective at long range as per the Codex. They do more damage against the Reapers, but are still far from instant kill weapons. The missiles you were defending at the end were a variation on Thanix design.

Codex says absolutely nothing about the range of the cannons. Missiles using the same tech seems hilariously out of step with the description of them being the result of an effect of very large EZ cores, even if scaled down for the Thanix version.

From the Codex (Reaper Capabilities):

"Weapons specifically designed to overcome shields, such as the Javelin, GARDIAN lasers, or the Thanix series, can bypass the barriers to some degree. The difficulty is getting close enough to use them -- the surface-mounted weaponry on Reaper ships, similar in principle to GARDIAN, presents an effective defense against organic species' fighters."

 

[VectorZero]

[Two: Did you do the Elcor ambassador's mission? If so, would you have liked to see Elcor in combat/have an Elcor squadmate?

Y'know, I was kinda hoping you could get Elcor-mounted Thanix missiles by doing that quest... would've made the "6 brutes and 2 banshees" fight more awesome.

*snip*

Since I share his name, I might make your line "I don't give a shit about Jacob!" into a ringtone. Maybe for my boss...

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

@Susan

"I have a problem with the word 'lied'. But if you really believe to the core of your soul that Bioware lied..."

I stopped listening there. With respect, you evidently didn't pay as much attention to Bioware's promises as the fans did. I'm a rather cynical person and know better than to trust what developers say about a game before its release, but even I was surprised at how many bare-faced lies (yes, that is the right word) Bioware told about the game. One example (specifically regarding the ending of the game, to stay on topic): it is not possible to get the ending where Shepard lives without playing MP, despite numerous very clear statements to the contrary by Bioware. For Shepard to live you need 5000 EMS, but with 50% Galactic Readiness (no MP) the highest EMS you can get is less than 4000 i.e. not even close.

"lying" implies intent. It means that you know you were saying something that was untrue at the time you said it. It implies an intention to deceive. If you believe that's what happened with regard to the FTC filing, which is what I was referring to, ok. I don't.

Hudson came really close to lying in his PR spins.

I beleive that this was said a month before release as well. And if that rumor is true, then Hudson essentially wrote the ending by himself without the writing team. I don't know if he intentionally came close to lying or if he is just inept.
Guy Jackson's statement about the war assets is also true. They did lie there. I've done practically every side quest in the game and I still never had 5000 in war assets that were "ready".

 

[The Deadpool]

On the subject of the FTC ordeal and "did Bioware lie?" concept...

Question: With the ending in Mass Effect 2, there were so many different variables and possibilities for the outcome and what could happen. As players reached the end, they started comparing notes and trying to figure out how it worked. A few months after it came out, we ran a chart in the magazine that showed the layout of how to get the different endings and how things happened. Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?

Answer: Yeah, and I?d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don?t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we?re taking into account so many decisions that you?ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It?s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.

It?s more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them. It would be interesting to see if somebody could put together a chart for that. Even with Mass Effect 2?s...

Emphasis added mine.

As for the difference between Mass Effect and the Mona Lisa (or paintings in general):

Mona Lisa is unique. It's ONE. And if you don't like it, you don't buy it.

If you go to a restaurant and they give you bad food, you don't pay for it, right? Cooking is art too...

If you're an architect, and you design a building that just doesn't work properly, aren't you expected to do it over, and do it RIGHT this time?

Larry Niven has said more than once that one of the big reasons he made a sequel to Ringworld (his most popular novel) was that fans ran the math, and were walking up and down his hotel hallways dring a con shouting "The Ringworld is unstable!" His sequel RetCons many of the assumptions in the original.

Movies using test audiences all the time. As Good As It Gets originally had Nicholson's character just be a douchebag. Audiences didn't relate, so they added the OCD thing to make him more likely...

Akira Toryama planned to have Gohan be the main character in the last season, but brought Goku back because people liked him better.

When Peter David took over the Hulk, he RetConed past story out as a dream by Nightmare.

Broken Steel ALREADY RetConed the ending to a game because people shouted enough.

When a game's gunplay is considered broken or unbalanced, a patch (FREE patch, mind you) to fix it. In a game where the story is at least as important as the gameplay (arguably more) why SHOULDN'T the game fix a broken ending?

Fixing problems fans don't like is something that happens in cooking, architecture, books, TV shows, movies, comics and even GAMES themselves. What's the difference here?

As for bad precedents, giving MORE money to people who put out a flawed product is much worse than "developers give fans what they want."

 

[The Deadpool]

Guy Jackson's statement about the war assets is also true. They did lie there. I've done practically every side quest in the game and I still never had 5000 in war assets that were "ready".

Actually, someone ran the math once, and if you make the "right" decisions throughout all three games, you CAN get over 8,000 War Assets (with the right choice, you only need 4,000 EMS I think instead of 5,000). Don't remember the details, but sounds believable...

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Guy Jackson's statement about the war assets is also true. They did lie there. I've done practically every side quest in the game and I still never had 5000 in war assets that were "ready".

Actually, someone ran the math once, and if you make the "right" decisions throughout all three games, you CAN get over 8,000 War Assets (with the right choice, you only need 4,000 EMS I think instead of 5,000). Don't remember the details, but sounds believable...

So you have to be bloody perfect? That isn't much better. I can't play the multiplayer (no LIVE), and I get punished for it in a supposedly single player game. Luckily, the endings are crap regardless of war assets, so I don't feel as ripped off.

 

[The Deadpool]

Guy Jackson's statement about the war assets is also true. They did lie there. I've done practically every side quest in the game and I still never had 5000 in war assets that were "ready".

Actually, someone ran the math once, and if you make the "right" decisions throughout all three games, you CAN get over 8,000 War Assets (with the right choice, you only need 4,000 EMS I think instead of 5,000). Don't remember the details, but sounds believable...

So you have to be bloody perfect? That isn't much better. I can't play the multiplayer (no LIVE), and I get punished for it in a supposedly single player game. Luckily, the endings are crap regardless of war assets, so I don't feel as ripped off.

Yeah. And perfect doesn't mean nice. You gotta kill Wrex and Mordin (so you get Eve, the Krogan AND the Salarians), send Jack's kids to the frontlines, save the Collector's base, etc, etc, etc...

 

[NoTroll]

Susan is a bit of a bully in conversation.

 

[NoTroll]

On the subject of the FTC ordeal and "did Bioware lie?" concept...

Question: With the ending in Mass Effect 2, there were so many different variables and possibilities for the outcome and what could happen. As players reached the end, they started comparing notes and trying to figure out how it worked. A few months after it came out, we ran a chart in the magazine that showed the layout of how to get the different endings and how things happened. Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?

Answer: Yeah, and I?d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don?t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we?re taking into account so many decisions that you?ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It?s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.

It?s more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them. It would be interesting to see if somebody could put together a chart for that. Even with Mass Effect 2?s...

Emphasis added mine.

As for the difference between Mass Effect and the Mona Lisa (or paintings in general):

Mona Lisa is unique. It's ONE. And if you don't like it, you don't buy it.

If you go to a restaurant and they give you bad food, you don't pay for it, right? Cooking is art too...

If you're an architect, and you design a building that just doesn't work properly, aren't you expected to do it over, and do it RIGHT this time?

Larry Niven has said more than once that one of the big reasons he made a sequel to Ringworld (his most popular novel) was that fans ran the math, and were walking up and down his hotel hallways dring a con shouting "The Ringworld is unstable!" His sequel RetCons many of the assumptions in the original.

Movies using test audiences all the time. As Good As It Gets originally had Nicholson's character just be a douchebag. Audiences didn't relate, so they added the OCD thing to make him more likely...

Akira Toryama planned to have Gohan be the main character in the last season, but brought Goku back because people liked him better.

When Peter David took over the Hulk, he RetConed past story out as a dream by Nightmare.

Broken Steel ALREADY RetConed the ending to a game because people shouted enough.

When a game's gunplay is considered broken or unbalanced, a patch (FREE patch, mind you) to fix it. In a game where the story is at least as important as the gameplay (arguably more) why SHOULDN'T the game fix a broken ending?

Fixing problems fans don't like is something that happens in cooking, architecture, books, TV shows, movies, comics and even GAMES themselves. What's the difference here?

As for bad precedents, giving MORE money to people who put out a flawed product is much worse than "developers give fans what they want."

Quoted for truth.

 

[370999]

Guy Jackson's statement about the war assets is also true. They did lie there. I've done practically every side quest in the game and I still never had 5000 in war assets that were "ready".

Actually, someone ran the math once, and if you make the "right" decisions throughout all three games, you CAN get over 8,000 War Assets (with the right choice, you only need 4,000 EMS I think instead of 5,000). Don't remember the details, but sounds believable...

Really? Because from what I read while there is 8k war assets a lot of them are mutually exclusive.

 

[Casey Goddard]

How would I "fix" the ending to Mass Effect 3? I would do an epilogue montage narrated by an older James. Have it broken into lots of segments based on decisions the player made over the three games (surviving character bits, Rachni queen, etc.) Then depending on war assets you can have the fate of Shepard explained. If he died show a monument erected in his/her honor, if he lived show his/her fate:

Sole Survivor = Kicking it on the beach someplace (love interest optional)
War Hero = Teaching ethics and philosophy at a space academy
Ruthless = An important states(wo)man for Systems Alliance

 

[The Deadpool]

Really? Because from what I read while there is 8k war assets a lot of them are mutually exclusive.

This was someone else's work. It's kinda hard to double check without replaying all three games and I honestly don't have that kind of patience...

 

[The Deadpool]

Should listen to the whole thing before posting...

So wait, Star Trek ignoring a bad episode and pretending it doesn't exist because it's bad and stupid is okay, but changing a game is bad, because...?

Btw, ideas for a sequel:

Undeterminate time period. Don't tell anyone about it, but the game is actually about the creation of the Reapers. What a twist!

Pick a cannon ending and make the next series follow it. We already ignore Anderson as the Councillor in ME1 or Shepard dying in ME2, so why not ignore Synthesis/Control in ME3?

As for villain, how about... We have an enemy for you to chase (Saren-like). When you first combat it, you find out he's a unique blend of Biotic/Tech that makes him essentiall unbeatable. Your only chance against him is using a Geth squad mate that, thanks to your help, ends up learning how to be a biotic himself. As the first game ends and the triology continues, you now have to prevent your former biotic geth from becoming the AI singularity the Reapers were talking about...

 

[Sofus]

I'll just leave this here - http://forums.g4tv.com/showthread.php?t=179077

 

[MatsVS]

Exactly.

Eh, we can speculate about intent all day, but that gains us nothing but further antagonism between Bioware and its fans. And besides, we know that Bioware were still writing the ending mere months before the game's release, so for all we know, Hudson had every intention to do good on his "promise".

I think just agreeing that they seriously screwed up and broke their own game is damning enough without adding charges of some insidious deception as well.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Exactly.

Eh, we can speculate about intent all day, but that gains us nothing but further antagonism between Bioware and its fans. And besides, we know that Bioware were still writing the ending mere months before the game's release, so for all we know, Hudson had every intention to do good on his "promise".

I think just agreeing that they seriously screwed up and broke their own game is damning enough without adding charges of some insidious deception as well.

Since when does posting anything on a forum gain anyone anything? I don't see your point there.

As for the notion that BW simply screwed up, if it were just one or two broken promises I might agree, but there's loads of them. IMO it's quite remarkable how much of what was said turned out to be not just exaggerated or inaccurate, but patently false.

 

[370999]

Really? Because from what I read while there is 8k war assets a lot of them are mutually exclusive.

This was someone else's work. It's kinda hard to double check without replaying all three games and I honestly don't have that kind of patience...

Well I'm going to throw this here

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/10897140

Bioware might delete it though so meh.

 

[The Deadpool]

Really? Because from what I read while there is 8k war assets a lot of them are mutually exclusive.

This was someone else's work. It's kinda hard to double check without replaying all three games and I honestly don't have that kind of patience...

Well I'm going to throw this here

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/10897140

Bioware might delete it though so meh.

Already gone... Wanna give us a run down of how it added to the conversation before being deleted?

 

[370999]

Already gone... Wanna give us a run down of how it added to the conversation before being deleted?

Basically more devoted people then me proved that it is impossible to get 8000 Total military strength. It can't be done. While more then 8k assets existed in the game you can't get them all.

You have to play multiplayer to get the Shepard breath scene.

Take the fact that Bioware is frantically deleting what says otherwise as a very bad sign (i.e they were lying when they said you weren't missing anything by not playing multiplayer)