OK so I know I only have one post to my name and the upcoming caveat is probably going to turn some people away but hear me out on this.
Caveat: I haven't played Mass Effect 3. The ToS of Origin is bull and I didn't want in on my computer. However I have watched the endings online and saw the crap Bioware gave to cap off the series. I saw the plot holes and I've spent a bit of my time simply reading the debates that came out after the end. So hopefully that means most of you will at least listen.
So most if not all of us can agree the ME3 endings were crap. They were full of holes, rather bleak and somewhat nihilistic, took away our choices, pretty much took a huge dump on the series as a whole and alienated damn near the entire fan base. Now what I thought was... what if that was the point?
What if what we got was less of a crappy Deus ex Machina and more of a writer revolt?
What if Casey Hudson deliberately tanked the end of ME3 just to spite EA? Think about it the work put into mass effect. How much he and the rest of the writing staff did to make the characters real, the world vast, and the game involved. Overall they succeeded, the game was a hit and the sales were up.
Then they got bought by EA. Over the five or so years their game slowly began to get dumbed down. The characters were still there but the combat system was simplified, things like the Mako were cut whole sale rather then streamlined, Item mods was dropped in favor of just weapons, cover based shooting, and no more inventory or character stats. The game was starting to get watered down but they still had their writing.
Then came Mass effect 3. There was a massive amount of, as one web video put it, 'Jersey shore-a-faction. The combat system was also further watered down with close combat kills akin to the chainsaw from Gears of War. Worse of all now there were characters they HAD to put in (Diana Allers), and Characters they were forced to take out (Javik the Prothean). Not to mention apps and planned DLC. In short EA was monetizing everything about the game.
It was obvious EA was planning to franchise the hell out of it.
And then they wanted the ending changed. What if Casey Hudson was told by EA to make the ending less of a finale. To leave it very open ended so that they could release DLC after the games end for more profit. Change the end so that it wouldn't end.
So he did, maybe he talked to the other writers about this maybe he didn't, but the goal was clear. Tank the Mass Effect series so hard that EA couldn't wring anything else from it. End the series by crapping out an ending so horrible and counter to what was wanted that it not only destroyed the fanbase surrounding it, but it repulsed the fans so much they would campaign against it. They would go out of their way to make sure no one else would want to buy the game via toxic word of mouth and review bombing.
So he came up with an ending so bad only a small percentage of people would think it was a good ending. Put in plot holes, lore issues, introduce a new element completely out of place in the series, and wipe out any chance of the series getting a sequel by destroying the very things that made the universe work. And he could do it because it failed in such a way only hardcore fans would realize just how crap the ending was. Executives would think that it was a great ending big explosions, bad guy killed, all very heady and intellectual, and most of all... 'lots of speculation for everyone'. And so he all but killed his series in his way, before it became a hollow shell of itself simply rehashed over and over like the next Mario or Zelda game.
Why do I think this? Well lets look at the ending which could be a massive 'take that' to EA. The Starchild really just came out of nowhere and effectively started making demands of the Shepherd. Much like a corporate executive would. He pretty much pushes what he wants with little regard for Shepherd, or in this case the writers, and sums everything up into black and ​white simple terms. He wants the game to be homogenized and able to be marketed to the whole rather then the fans (synthesis ending). If the writer refuses then the Corp exe takes it somewhere else and gets someone else to do it taking control away from the writer (Control ending). Failing even that then he accepts that the writer won't do it and takes the rights to it and just runs with it as they see fit driving it into the ground with 'brilliant ideas' (Destroy ending).
So the writer fights back any way he can, in this case by making an ending so horrible, destroying the series in so through a way that it drives away the fans, taints the previous games, and destroys the lore so that you couldn't make another game after since the Relays are wiped out. And this is all done while leaving subtle hints that Shepherd might be indoctrinated effectively allowing others to say 'well it was all a dream and I still have my Shepherd who would likely wake up from that and beat the shit out the reapers for trying that.'
And the icing on the cake would be how one Shepherd, in this case Casey Hudson's story and his Shepherd, sacrificed himself and likely his career to allow the rest of the Shepherds, in this case the fanbase, to unite against the Reapers, in this case EA and their Polices. The story mirrors the Real world if you assume EA is the Reapers and the rest of the galaxy is the fan base. Putting aside our differences to fight against overwhelming corporations and their desire to absorb everything and pander to the lowest common denominator without ever taking any risks.
Or he could just be a raving egomaniac moron who can't end a series.
Caveat: I haven't played Mass Effect 3. The ToS of Origin is bull and I didn't want in on my computer. However I have watched the endings online and saw the crap Bioware gave to cap off the series. I saw the plot holes and I've spent a bit of my time simply reading the debates that came out after the end. So hopefully that means most of you will at least listen.
So most if not all of us can agree the ME3 endings were crap. They were full of holes, rather bleak and somewhat nihilistic, took away our choices, pretty much took a huge dump on the series as a whole and alienated damn near the entire fan base. Now what I thought was... what if that was the point?
What if what we got was less of a crappy Deus ex Machina and more of a writer revolt?
What if Casey Hudson deliberately tanked the end of ME3 just to spite EA? Think about it the work put into mass effect. How much he and the rest of the writing staff did to make the characters real, the world vast, and the game involved. Overall they succeeded, the game was a hit and the sales were up.
Then they got bought by EA. Over the five or so years their game slowly began to get dumbed down. The characters were still there but the combat system was simplified, things like the Mako were cut whole sale rather then streamlined, Item mods was dropped in favor of just weapons, cover based shooting, and no more inventory or character stats. The game was starting to get watered down but they still had their writing.
Then came Mass effect 3. There was a massive amount of, as one web video put it, 'Jersey shore-a-faction. The combat system was also further watered down with close combat kills akin to the chainsaw from Gears of War. Worse of all now there were characters they HAD to put in (Diana Allers), and Characters they were forced to take out (Javik the Prothean). Not to mention apps and planned DLC. In short EA was monetizing everything about the game.
It was obvious EA was planning to franchise the hell out of it.
And then they wanted the ending changed. What if Casey Hudson was told by EA to make the ending less of a finale. To leave it very open ended so that they could release DLC after the games end for more profit. Change the end so that it wouldn't end.
So he did, maybe he talked to the other writers about this maybe he didn't, but the goal was clear. Tank the Mass Effect series so hard that EA couldn't wring anything else from it. End the series by crapping out an ending so horrible and counter to what was wanted that it not only destroyed the fanbase surrounding it, but it repulsed the fans so much they would campaign against it. They would go out of their way to make sure no one else would want to buy the game via toxic word of mouth and review bombing.
So he came up with an ending so bad only a small percentage of people would think it was a good ending. Put in plot holes, lore issues, introduce a new element completely out of place in the series, and wipe out any chance of the series getting a sequel by destroying the very things that made the universe work. And he could do it because it failed in such a way only hardcore fans would realize just how crap the ending was. Executives would think that it was a great ending big explosions, bad guy killed, all very heady and intellectual, and most of all... 'lots of speculation for everyone'. And so he all but killed his series in his way, before it became a hollow shell of itself simply rehashed over and over like the next Mario or Zelda game.
Why do I think this? Well lets look at the ending which could be a massive 'take that' to EA. The Starchild really just came out of nowhere and effectively started making demands of the Shepherd. Much like a corporate executive would. He pretty much pushes what he wants with little regard for Shepherd, or in this case the writers, and sums everything up into black and ​white simple terms. He wants the game to be homogenized and able to be marketed to the whole rather then the fans (synthesis ending). If the writer refuses then the Corp exe takes it somewhere else and gets someone else to do it taking control away from the writer (Control ending). Failing even that then he accepts that the writer won't do it and takes the rights to it and just runs with it as they see fit driving it into the ground with 'brilliant ideas' (Destroy ending).
So the writer fights back any way he can, in this case by making an ending so horrible, destroying the series in so through a way that it drives away the fans, taints the previous games, and destroys the lore so that you couldn't make another game after since the Relays are wiped out. And this is all done while leaving subtle hints that Shepherd might be indoctrinated effectively allowing others to say 'well it was all a dream and I still have my Shepherd who would likely wake up from that and beat the shit out the reapers for trying that.'
And the icing on the cake would be how one Shepherd, in this case Casey Hudson's story and his Shepherd, sacrificed himself and likely his career to allow the rest of the Shepherds, in this case the fanbase, to unite against the Reapers, in this case EA and their Polices. The story mirrors the Real world if you assume EA is the Reapers and the rest of the galaxy is the fan base. Putting aside our differences to fight against overwhelming corporations and their desire to absorb everything and pander to the lowest common denominator without ever taking any risks.
Or he could just be a raving egomaniac moron who can't end a series.
