Report: Mass Effect Put on Indefinite Hold

Fensfield

New member
Nov 4, 2009
421
0
0
Oh come on; Andromeda had a lot to rag on but the story was good, and now they're not going to continue it? Bleh, it sounded like it was lining up for some spaceborne horror, too.
 

KoDOmega

New member
Nov 22, 2009
85
0
0
... holy crap, my account's still usable after years of neglect???? Awesome!

On the one hand, I absolutely think people have been too harsh on the game and it doesn't deserve half the hate it gets.

On the other, I couldn't save on my PS4 after getting 1.0.6, so...
 

Tony2077

New member
Dec 19, 2007
2,984
0
0
well this sucks i like the game and there is still a lot we weren't told about so it would have been neat to see where those story paths led. oh just because of who i am haters be damned
 

Darth Rosenberg

New member
Oct 25, 2011
1,288
0
0
Silentpony said:
I see business as business.
Which probably explains why you're only seeing part of the picture.

Bioware is in the business of making money. Business is that simple. [1]Did you make enough money to turn a profit? [2]Did you hit your sales goal? [3]Was your product well received by the consumer? [4]Can we justify a sequel game, given our first game's reception? [5]Did the flaws in our product affect sales? [6]Why were the flaws not fixed? [7]Who was in charge of those areas that were flawed? [8]Why did they give us a flawed product? [9]Why are they still working for us?
You're really not doing your position any good.

Let's go through 'em.

1: clearly EA did.

2: we'd need to speak to EA for that, as I stated before - and their position wouldn't necessarily be of any worth for the reasons I previously stated (publishers: not a reliably bright lot).

3: how do we judge that in any meaningful way? 'Fan' feedback? Aggregate sites? Random YT channels? Ranting forumites either with axes to grind or loyalties to defend? Polls through official channels? Snippets of all the above?

4: that's up to EA, and I find it very hard to believe another ME won't go into production soon enough (relatively speaking).

5: define "flaws", for starters, given those are mostly subjective in a creative artform. Many things affected sales. Delicate snowflakes ironically bridling at progressiveness, for one. Bugs for another - ME:A only finished installing on my drive a few minutes ago because I wasn't going to touch such a clearly - demonstrably - technically defective product (as less than impressive as ME:A's face tech is, I do not count that among the technical errors).

6: most guesses point to 'EA done EA again', given they should've been keenly aware of the state of the product they were backing. I'm not sure anyone knows the specifics yet, but it's reasonable to suspect BioWare and EA were effectively negligent in a variety of ways.

7's academic and down to BioWare's discretion and possible internal reviews.

8: a good question for the technical issues, and one I'd like to know the answer to. If they most care about early doors sales, then they lost my contribution because of its unfit state for release (though I am still adding to their overall sales success).

9: ditto as for 7.

The post of yours I challenged tried to paint ME:A's and a possible follow-up's fate as simple. The above questions and their possible answers do nothing but complicate matters.

The fact someone takes pride in their work doesn't matter if they go out of business because no one else took pride in their work.
...I'm sorry, did EA or BioWare go bust whilst I wasn't looking? Was ME:A a disaster commercially? That's a clear 'no' to both.

Referencing creative pride [in a creative medium] was relevant to illustrate that there are many perspectives on, and the means to measure, the quality of work that's been done by the various parties involved, and that beyond the metrics of units shifted, nothing is simple, and barely anything can ever be boiled down to 'derp, fail/succeed'.

If you've tried to claim ME:A was a black and white true/false failure, then so far you've not actually done a single thing to try to back it up, and given you can't reasonably cite commercial - or critical - failure, I'm not sure how you'd go about it.

Tony2077 said:
well this sucks i like the game and there is still a lot we weren't told about so it would have been neat to see where those story paths led. oh just because of who i am haters be damned
It's worth keeping in mind just how small a group of haterz there probably is, relative to the amount of people just playing the game normally. ME:A's technical faults were just an excuse for certain groups to give BioWare another kicking.

...though, granted, it was like a defender in football going in studs up in the box, therefore giving the ref a decision to make - clearly BioWare/EA made mistakes.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Ukomba said:
All I know is I didn't buy it. Primarily it was because I was hoping for them to run with the indoctrination theory
I don't see how anyone could still have been holding out for something validating the IT to be implemented considering how the EC canonically disproves everything the IT suggests about the ending. After the EC, the only thing about the IT that has merit is the evidence that Shepard was in the process of being Indoctrinated throughout the trilogy...but much like that star that was being affected by dark energy in ME2: Shepard's possible Indoctrination was a story thread that was never developed.

DemomanHusband said:
To be fair, saying you were surprised by how good a game like ME:A was is like saying you were surprised by how dry the ocean is, it displays a blatant lack of objective understanding of your own experiences. ME:A is not a good game, not even a passable game with solid mechanics bogged down by bugs, it's through-and-through bad. Trying to pass off all the blame for the franchise's death onto 'the community' is just putting blinders on.
Granted: I agree that the studio had more to do with the game's reception than a toxic community, but that doesn't mean that you get to dictate what someone else considers to be a good game. If Vampwizimp thought the game was surprisingly good then - per Vampwizimp's tastes - it was good. You're welcome to disagree with that if you want, but there is nothing objective about personal tastes and preferences.

Your comparison regarding calling the ocean dry doesn't work because water being wet is an objectively observable fact that isn't based on personal tastes/preferences. Whether or not an individual finds a game to be good and enjoyable - regardless of whatever objectively observable flaws it may have - is still an entirely subjective matter since it is based on personal tastes/preferences.
Not sure how any of that changes the fact that I was disappointed they didn't decide to roll with the theory, and that decision effected my choice on buying the next game. It's more like whinging that someone likes the theory.

But no I don't think it completely disproves it. At best it explains how your crew members ended up on the Normandy, there is still a lot that doesn't make sense, including how Shepard apparently wakes up at the end of the Destroy ending buried in concrete on earth when he was exploded in space. It doesn't explain the appearing, disheartening, visible only to Shepard child. Or any of the dream like nonsense that happens post Reaper blast.

IMO the only smart way to move forward for them at this point is to dust off those story lines and and give the original Mass Effect the ending it deserves. Embrace the indoctrination theory as a way to reboot ME3 (just the end or most of it) and wipe out ME4 entirely, bring in that dark energy story line make the game more than just a series of shooting set pieces.
 

The Raw Shark

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
Nov 19, 2014
241
0
0
So does this mean they're not gonna touch Dragon Age or Mass Effect ever again? Because as far as those are concerned, Origins ended after Awakening and the Citadel DLC for ME3 was the actual ending.

I mean as much as I liked BioWare, their recent tendency to turn their games in to shittier MMOs than their actual MMO have left my jimmies significantly rustled. Also the potential to either go back to voiceless protags with better dialogue options for the main character, or at least voice actors with more emotional range than a stump of wood with an even bigger stump up it's ass.

Seriously why the hell are people only complaining about it for Fallout 4 when we have never so desperately needed the return of Darth "Fat people always lie" Revan
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Ukomba said:
Not sure how any of that changes the fact that I was disappointed they didn't decide to roll with the theory, and that decision effected my choice on buying the next game. It's more like whinging that someone likes the theory.
Not really, since I wasn't questioning your disappointment with the fact that the IT was implemented. Rather I was questioning the rationale behind believing it ever could be implemented.

But no I don't think it completely disproves it.
It's been half a decade, so I really don't want to get into this argument again. So here's the short version: the IT implies that ME3 doesn't actually end. Best case scenario: Shepard breaks free and wakes up on the battlefield on Earth. Cut to credits. The EC shows that the game actually does end when you pick your favorite color (or tell Star Child to piss off and let the Reapers win) and goes on to show an epilogue revealing the ramifications of your actions.

At best it explains how your crew members ended up on the Normandy, there is still a lot that doesn't make sense, including how Shepard apparently wakes up at the end of the Destroy ending buried in concrete on earth when he was exploded in space.
It's called "crappy writing filled with plotholes and inconsistencies." There's your explanation. :^)

It doesn't explain the appearing, disheartening, visible only to Shepard child. Or any of the dream like nonsense that happens post Reaper blast.
As I said: that can be attributed to the notion that they were wanting to do something with Shepard being indoctrinated but decided to nix that story thread, just like the dark energy star reaction. This is, in turn, again attributed to shoddy writing filled with plotholes and inconsistencies.

IMO the only smart way to move forward for them at this point is to dust off those story lines and and give the original Mass Effect the ending it deserves. Embrace the indoctrination theory as a way to reboot ME3 (just the end or most of it) and wipe out ME4 entirely, bring in that dark energy story line make the game more than just a series of shooting set pieces.
I'm all for people saying "I wish this game had been made like this." Hell, I wish Dark Siders III was going to be a 4-player co-op. The issue is that the game you want is based off of a theoretical plot thread that was canonically proven to be not true/applicable. :^)

Now, if you're saying you would have wanted a remake of ME3 that did fully explore Shepard's Indoctrination rather than making ME:A, then that's fine and I can certainly understand that sentiment considering how disappointing the ending to ME3 was. I'd still argue that there's other issues with the IT that makes it unsuitable for that reason, but at that point we'd be talking about a hypothetical game that could hypothetically be made in any number of ways, so it'd be pointless to argue about it. :p
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Ukomba said:
Not sure how any of that changes the fact that I was disappointed they didn't decide to roll with the theory, and that decision effected my choice on buying the next game. It's more like whinging that someone likes the theory.
Not really, since I wasn't questioning your disappointment with the fact that the IT was implemented. Rather I was questioning the rationale behind believing it ever could be implemented.
Of course it COULD be implemented. The only limitation there is your imagination. WOULD it be implemented is another question entirely and it's clear the higher ups at EA are unimaginative and want to play things safe so it's unlikely they'd choose the more creative direction over cribbing off HALO.

RJ 17 said:
But no I don't think it completely disproves it.
It's been half a decade, so I really don't want to get into this argument again. So here's the short version: the IT implies that ME3 doesn't actually end. Best case scenario: Shepard breaks free and wakes up on the battlefield on Earth. Cut to credits. The EC shows that the game actually does end when you pick your favorite color (or tell Star Child to piss off and let the Reapers win) and goes on to show an epilogue revealing the ramifications of your actions.

At best it explains how your crew members ended up on the Normandy, there is still a lot that doesn't make sense, including how Shepard apparently wakes up at the end of the Destroy ending buried in concrete on earth when he was exploded in space.
It's called "crappy writing filled with plotholes and inconsistencies." There's your explanation. :^)

It doesn't explain the appearing, disheartening, visible only to Shepard child. Or any of the dream like nonsense that happens post Reaper blast.
As I said: that can be attributed to the notion that they were wanting to do something with Shepard being indoctrinated but decided to nix that story thread, just like the dark energy star reaction. This is, in turn, again attributed to shoddy writing filled with plotholes and inconsistencies.

IMO the only smart way to move forward for them at this point is to dust off those story lines and and give the original Mass Effect the ending it deserves. Embrace the indoctrination theory as a way to reboot ME3 (just the end or most of it) and wipe out ME4 entirely, bring in that dark energy story line make the game more than just a series of shooting set pieces.
I'm all for people saying "I wish this game had been made like this." Hell, I wish Dark Siders III was going to be a 4-player co-op. The issue is that the game you want is based off of a theoretical plot thread that was canonically proven to be not true/applicable. :^)

Now, if you're saying you would have wanted a remake of ME3 that did fully explore Shepard's Indoctrination rather than making ME:A, then that's fine and I can certainly understand that sentiment considering how disappointing the ending to ME3 was. I'd still argue that there's other issues with the IT that makes it unsuitable for that reason, but at that point we'd be talking about a hypothetical game that could hypothetically be made in any number of ways, so it'd be pointless to argue about it. :p
TL;DR I have no interest in going into this with you. At this point you either a fan of the theory or you're not.
 

breadsammich

New member
May 5, 2011
132
0
0
The article specifically states that this does not mean there's no more Mass Effect. It only says that they're not IMMEDIATELY jumping into a sequel. Just a few snippets from the Kotaku article that completely contradict the sensationalist headline:

"BioWare Montreal will also continue to patch and support Andromeda's multiplayer."

"Even as BioWare continues to focus on the Mass Effect Andromeda community and live service...." (EA Quote)

"Earlier this week on an earnings call, Electronic Arts CEO Andrew Wilson told investors that the publisher is "very happy with how BioWare is doing, how BioWare is treating Mass Effect. And our expectations for Mass Effect are still strong for the future and the franchise overall."

Plus, if you read the rest of the article, it mentions that the Bioware and Motive teams are sharing space. Meaning they're not so much getting shipped off to other places as just moving down the hall. Obviously we can't know the future, but it seems outlandish that a game that got consistently average ratings and had the third biggest launch of the year would be immediately shelved for good. Not when there's sweet, sweet DLC money to be made. Plus it would be foolish to announce that you did not intend to continue a franchise just over a month after the newest entry launched. That would be a big dampener on sales.

Overall I think this is more a case of poor communication on EA's part, along with sensationalist headlines getting the better of our increasingly short attention spans.
 

talker

New member
Nov 18, 2011
313
0
0
I'm glad. Ubisoft are killing Assassin's Creed, and Mass Effect has too good a universe and too happy a memories for me to be trampled on year after year. I hope they'll revisit it in some time, perhaps with a remaster of ME1. It hasn't aged very well in my opinion.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Our teams at BioWare and across EA put in tremendous effort bringing Mass Effect Andromeda to players around the world.
You ungrateful shits.

Even as BioWare continues to focus on the Mass Effect Andromeda community and live service, we are constantly looking at how we're prepared for the next experiences we will create.
Wonder if they'll notice we didn't say "the next Mass Effect experiences we'll create"? Anyway, got to keep the servers on just long enough to milk those tail-end purchases.

The teams in EA Worldwide Studios are packed with talent, and more than ever, we are driving collaboration between studios on key projects.
Surely, someone out there will take these jackholes off our hands? Any of you want to enter the indie sector? Remember the golden rule: "transitioning" and "moving on" and "seeking new opportunities" looks good, "downsizing" and "laying off" and "shit-canning" looks bad.

With our BioWare and Motive teams sharing studio space in Montreal, we have BioWare team members joining Motive projects that are underway.
You know, Motive? Famous for...

Um...

Um...

...Working as the "B"-team for the studios that get all the credit?


We're also ramping up teams on other BioWare projects in development. We're also ramping up teams on other BioWare projects in development.
Dammit, we are not shutting down another studio while our investors can still remember how much we paid for it.
 

breadsammich

New member
May 5, 2011
132
0
0
MC1980 said:
Sure, and Deus Ex isn't dead again after Mankind Divided flopped. MEA was supposed to sell-through 3 million copies in its launch month. (Which is only somewhat more than ME3 did in its launch month.) It didn't get anywhere near that.

A company is never going to proclaim how much they fucked up. They're always going to spin it and sugar coat it in their statements. Their actions regarding the reorganisation of the company however, tell a much more honest story, and that makes this look really bad.

You said it yourself it would be foolish to say it out loud. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. DLC is still assured, atleast for MP, if their lootbox system makes money. SP, they'll still probably do, on a budget. But a sequel is off the table for a gooooood long while. Atleast another 5 year hibernation.
In regards to the reorganization, I've heard a lot of people saying that this is somewhat normal for companies. I'll admit I don't have any firsthand knowledge of the industry, but the argument goes that you don't need more than a skeleton crew to work on patches/dlc and that in the interim, the larger portion of employees get shuffled elsewhere--in the case of Montreal they're being moved essentially down the hall. All this really is speculation, though. I just wish Bioware or EA would make some kind of statement aside from the boilerplate language. Otherwise the internet is going to control the narrative, and you do not want to trust the internet with anything resembling a narrative.
 

breadsammich

New member
May 5, 2011
132
0
0
MC1980 said:
A moving of talent is normal, you're not in full production anymore, after all. However, the way it has been described is that they've been completely relegated to support on other projects with only MP being actively worked on MEA. ie they've been repurposed. Not helming any projects going forward.
Really we'll just have to wait and see. All we have right now is one Kotaku article claiming unidentified sources and whatever we can parse from the canned EA response.
 

AD-Stu

New member
Oct 13, 2011
1,287
0
0
fix-the-spade said:
More important is that nobody really cares. Mass Effect was almost entirely about it's characters and their relationships, Andromeda has none of those characters, Shepard and friends arc finished with Mass Effect 3. If I had any interest left in Mass Effect it was to see the galaxy in the aftermath of the Reaper War, when Andromeda got announced it felt like a massive cop out.
I dunno - mileage will certainly vary on that point. My personal view is that the absolute best "character" from the original trilogy, better than Shepard, Garrus, Wrex, Tali, Mordin or anyone else, was the universe itself.

It made absolute sense for ME3 to be the final Shepard game (before its release I 100% expected them to kill Shepard off at the end - I just didn't expect them to do it that badly...) Getting to spend more time in that universe with different characters telling different stories had exciting potential though. And I absoluely would have liked to see the aftermath of the Reaper War in the Milky Way too, but we got the ME3 ending we got and that made it kind of impossible.

I was iffy on the "brand new galaxy" concept of Andromeda at first, it sounded like a massive cop-out, but it made some sense in-universe and I think leaned really well into the more Star Trek style of ME1.

But again, mileage will no doubt vary.

JenSeven said:
The Montreal Branch frankly didn't deserve to be handed the franchise, as all they previously did was the Multiplayer, which didn't involve making the character models or write the story. And now they are downgraded to 'online support' which means that they will only be working on the Multiplayer, so no more fixes to the main game nor DLC.
FWIW I'm think Montreal were responsible for story DLC on the previous games too - as for whether they had the expertise to be handed the keys to the franchise, who knows what went into making that decision.
 

votemarvel

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
1,353
3
43
Country
England
I do wonder if the best way to revive the Mass effect franchise would be for Bioware to make a choice and pick one of the three original ME3 endings as canon. They do this for Dragon Age and form a story around it (such as Leliana being able to grow her head back.)

Personally I'd go with destroy as it removes the Reapers from the table and leaves the potential for AI to survive. There would have to be some remote Geth out there who never got the Reaper upgrades and so wouldn't have taken the hit. Perhaps a back-up of EDI could be found but because of the differences in her bluebox, you have to learn what there is to know about EDI's 'sister'.

How to get around those three other endings (synthesis, control, and the added refuse)? Well you could never make everyone happy but it could easily be addressed. Have Shepard talking to someone, an old squadmate or perhaps a new protagonist before we take control of them. Have Shepard talk about the weird dream that they had and how they actually kind of liked it.

I really think that would work. The Milky Way is a big place. Plenty still here to explore.
 

AD-Stu

New member
Oct 13, 2011
1,287
0
0
Yeah they could absolutely do that - I don't think the move to a different galaxy was in itself a massive problem though, it was more what they chose to do when they got there and the execution errors that were the problem.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,055
85
53
Country
USA
fi6eka said:
immortalfrieza said:
.....Mass Effect Andromeda is a very good game with great story, characters, and gameplay with an incredible amount of potential......
Apparently stating a fact is laugh worthy around here. Andromeda IS a very good game by any objective standard, the shooting is fluid and tactical, the graphics are gorgeous, the story is gripping, the characters are fun and avoid being too cliched, the exploration is varied and avoids getting repetitive... all that isn't enough for a fanbase that is never EVER satisfied.