Why did Bioware write the pre-Extended Cut ending for Mass Effect 3 the way they did?

sonofliber

New member
Mar 8, 2010
245
0
0
ahh yes open endings, the easy way out, its artsy and smart (no it isnt, very few can write a good open ending, most of them suck and are badly done, its not smart its frigging lazy, its the writer way of saying: well i have no frigging clue how to end this, so here "boom" end).

also calling a game that introduces a god 5 minutes before the ending(out of fucking nowhere), its not smart, its retarded.

love how people say its smart because they understand it (yeah it can still suck boys)
 

Artemicion

Need superslick, Kupo.
Dec 7, 2009
527
0
0
Casey Hudson and Mac Walters were the only two writing the ending, and their both pretentious as all hell. They're under the impression that being obscure and confusing is the same as being meaningful or relevant, and rather than end the story in a satisfactory and fitting way, they chose instead to put in what they thought would be an artistic statement.
My favorite news article is when one of the other writers came out and said that those were the only two working on it, they didn't allow for peer review, and none of the other writers liked the ending, either. Hudson and Walters fancy themselves as "accidental artists", when I'd be more likely to label them "accidental writers". After all, "anything can be art if we say it is, but art alone doesn't imply merit." [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBETU-uOGh8]
 

bioject

New member
Aug 12, 2010
59
0
0
Misterian said:
As indifferent as I was toward Mass Effect 3's ending before Extended Cut was released, I have to admit I was curious to why Bioware did it they way it was in the first place.

I know how the ending caused so much uproar among fans and (if i remember right) Bioware for some reason seemed reluctant toward changing the ending or even toward properly explaining themselves about it. And its obvious this uproar likely wouldn't have happened if Bioware did the ending they way it was done in Extended Cut in the first place.

but I think it still begs the question; why didn't they? why did Bioware write the Mass effect 3 ending the way they did before releasing Extended Cut? what was the point or purpose? what made them think a straight happy ending where ONLY the Reapers are wiped out and the galaxy is at peace would hurt the game in any way?

What reasons do you think Bioware did the Mass Effect 3 ending the way they did it before releasing Extended Cut?
Because the original writer for Mass Effect never worked on the sequels. Instead Mass Effect 2 and 3 are horrible fanfictions.
 

natster43

New member
Jul 10, 2009
2,459
0
0
I am pretty sure it was partially caused by deadlines and partially by Casey Hudson (I think) deciding that his version of the ending would be the only ending idea allowed, no exceptions. correct me if I am wrong though.
 

crazyrabbits

New member
Jul 10, 2012
472
0
0
The terrible ending is symptomatic of the shoddy quality found throughout the rest of the game. They rushed it, and it shows. In fact, I wonder how the game would have turned out if EA didn't give them that four-month deadline extension because, even in its final form, it's a buggy, unpolished mess.

There are moments of serious lag in heated firefights, many accounts of bugs throughout the entire game, clipping issues, weird holes in the levels, unfinished character models in sight on the hub world, etc. Never mind the myriad problems with the story and plot itself.

The fact that Bioware, according to all accounts, is trying to push the Synthesis idea on the player base via their upcoming Leviathan DLC, should tell you all you need to know about how rushed and confused the development team was. They seemed to think that ending the game in one of the dumbest ways imaginable (leave your crew and the entire universe in a state of destruction) was passable, and they are still (even after the EC) unwilling to admit they screwed up monumentally.

Pride comes before the fall.
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
TheOneBearded said:
I got to say, they really tried to make the worst ending of all time for this game. To bad, Borderlands still holds the crown.
They knew perfectly well what a dick-move that ending was, and I cannot fathom why they still chose to do it. Who does shit like that for it's own sake?
number2301 said:
I'd like to echo some of the previous comments, Bioware wrote the ending like they did because they didn't know where they were going until right at the end, and because they wanted an open ending. Which clearly a lot of people couldn't cope with for whatever reason.
Hornet0404 said:
They assumed people were intelligent enough to formulate their own conclusions (in other words they made an "open ending" which I'm an absolute sucker for).

captcha: it's over

Yes it is.
It doesn't possess profundity, it's just gibberish crossed with nonsense crossed with ???. Not every open ending is a good open ending. Like a mouthwatering Dagwood, it has to be well constructed and meticulously thought out or it just falls apart. The Mass Effect 3 ending doesn't give you anything to think about that has anything to do with Mass Effect or isn't fucking stupid.

EA and Activision are constantly testing their customers to see what they can get away with monetizing. I think trying to turn the ending of a story-driven series into a paid DLC opportunity is what accounts for the shift in the style of the writing. I can't prove it guys, it's just conjecture. But I certainly believe that's what happened.
anthony87 said:
erttheking said:
anthony87 said:
erttheking said:
Because ARTISTIC INTEGRITY and LOTS AND LOTS OF SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE!

Yeah I'm still bitter, what of it? And I think I might blow my fucking top if anyone calls me "butthurt" or "entitled"
Well according to a couple of people in this thread, you, I and many others like us were apparently just too stupid to understand the ending properly so Bioware had to dumb it down. But hey, that's better than "butthurt" or "entitled" right?
...from your perspective maybe, from mine, I kinda want to punch my wall right now. I'm too stupid to understand the DEEP SYMBOLISM behind the fucking little 2001 a Space Odyssey rip off!? REALLY!? It's not symbolism, It's fucking lazy writing, pure and simple...I should stop now before I say something that'll get me banned.
Hey you're preaching to the choir here man. The ending was a piece of shit as far as I'm concerned. If people want to delude themselves into thinking it was this deep, insightful thing with tons of meaning then more power to them.
You guys just don't get it. It was open-ended. Therefore it was good no matter how laughable it was. That's how it works, right?
sonofliber said:
ahh yes open endings, the easy way out, its artsy and smart (no it isnt, very few can write a good open ending, most of them suck and are badly done, its not smart its frigging lazy, its the writer way of saying: well i have no frigging clue how to end this, so here "boom" end).
Exactly. An incompetent attempt at a difficult creative task is not worthy of praise.
Conrad Wentzel said:
Because the original writer for Mass Effect never worked on the sequels. Instead Mass Effect 2 and 3 are horrible fanfictions.
Mass Effect 2 made it clear to me that any attempt at good writing had been abandoned. It was obvious even before the intro credits rolled. I have never understood why more people didn't complain.
 

sunsetspawn

New member
Jul 25, 2009
210
0
0
crazyrabbits said:
The terrible ending is symptomatic of the shoddy quality found throughout the rest of the game. They rushed it, and it shows. In fact, I wonder how the game would have turned out if EA didn't give them that four-month deadline extension because, even in its final form, it's a buggy, unpolished mess.

There are moments of serious lag in heated firefights, many accounts of bugs throughout the entire game, clipping issues, weird holes in the levels, unfinished character models in sight on the hub world, etc.
Bugs aside, the game seemed stunted. There was only one hub world, and many of the missions (not just the later ones) were dull and uninspired. People have mentioned Thessia and Earth, but I also remember Palaven being kind of weak too, until you get to the Brutes (or whatever they're called).

Never mind the myriad problems with the story and plot itself.
The story fell off of the rails in part 2, and stayed off those rails. The arc wasn't advanced, and no questions were answered, so I had little hope for 3. There was a small part of me that hoped that 2 was the "action movie" interlude between the brilliant opening and closing of a good sci-fi story, but that simply wasn't the case. In fact, 3 sort of stumbled along until it finally shit itself and died right before the finish line. Once again, there was that small part of me that hoped they'd pull it all together at the end, but holy cunthat did they fuck the pooch with that ending.

There's no excuse for this type of shitty storytelling, and this applies to Battlestar Galactica, Lost, and Prometheus too. This should have been worked out years ago, and yet anyone that followed the development knows that they put the ending together in the fall of 2011.

What

the

fuck


This isn't a fucking tenth grade english paper on Macbeth, motherfuckers. You don't make a pot of coffee and pull an all-nighter to bang out an ending at the last minute in a multi-million dollar production.

I keep thinking that Matt Stone and Trey Parker should've been involved. Comedy writing aside, those guys lovingly craft excellent stories, and do it consistently.

The fact that Bioware, according to all accounts, is trying to push the Synthesis idea on the player base via their upcoming Leviathan DLC, should tell you all you need to know about how rushed and confused the development team was.
I'm sure. Something clearly isn't right over there. On a side note, the Synth ending was the worst one.
Control was badass with the borgish voiced Shep, and destroy seems like it's "cannon" due to it requiring the highest EMS for the best version, and in that best version Shep lives (as a person) and the Mass Effect universe continues on fairly normally, but with Reapers.

Control and Synth kind of end that universe by having it protected by god-like sentinels.

They seemed to think that ending the game in one of the dumbest ways imaginable (leave your crew and the entire universe in a state of destruction) was passable, and they are still (even after the EC) unwilling to admit they screwed up monumentally.

Pride comes before the fall.
You really can't come out and say, "we botched the third game, so we're gonna make it over and everything in that third game didn't really happen."

Everybody has to live with the fact that Mass Effect's "Return of the Jedi" was really "Revenge of the Sith."
 

Reaper195

New member
Jul 5, 2009
2,055
0
0
From what I've gathered, the lead writer and head director of Bioware shut out everyone else on the dev/writing team and did everything from the Cerberus HQ onwards by themselves. Personally, I liked the ending aside from not knowing what happened to my squad mates, as well as not seeing the true extent of the Krogan army. I wanted to see massive waves of raging Krogan just smashing through Reaper forces.
 

sunsetspawn

New member
Jul 25, 2009
210
0
0
Rooster Cogburn said:
EA and Activision are constantly testing their customers to see what they can get away with monetizing. I think trying to turn the ending of a story-driven series into a paid DLC opportunity is what accounts for the shift in the style of the writing. I can't prove it guys, it's just conjecture. But I certainly believe that's what happened.
The "broken" EMS issue is solid evidence of this. Before the EC "fixed" the issue, you actually had to PAY MORE for the best ending where Shep lives. (yes I'm considering having to either purchase a gold account or purchase an iPhone + app paying more because I neither have an iPhone nor a gold account)


You guys just don't get it. It was open-ended. Therefore it was good no matter how laughable it was. That's how it works, right?
A facetious tone isn't enough to express the proper rage at the game.

Anyway, the open endedness of ME3 was lazy incompetence exacerbated by EA deadlines. In fact, there really was no way to end that story properly in an open-ended fasion.


On an unrelated note, to see OPEN-ENDED done properly you all need to see Let Me In. That movie ends on a perfect note. There's also a Norwegian version called Let the Right One In that supposedly has a more straightforward ending, but I haven't seen it. Seriously though, everybody needs to see Let Me In, and don't read anything about it lest it be spoiled, just go see it.


Mass Effect 2 made it clear to me that any attempt at good writing had been abandoned. It was obvious even before the intro credits rolled. I have never understood why more people didn't complain.
More people didn't complain because the gameplay was very solid, right down to level design. Yes, it was a TPS and not an RPG, but it was still good. Also, while the plot was weak, the character interactions were strong, so I wasn't going to get all pissy about what was ultimately an enjoyable experience.
 

crazyrabbits

New member
Jul 10, 2012
472
0
0
I agree with you.

sunsetspawn said:
The "broken" EMS issue is solid evidence of this. Before the EC "fixed" the issue, you actually had to PAY MORE for the best ending where Shep lives. (yes I'm considering having to either purchase a gold account or purchase an iPhone + app paying more because I neither have an iPhone nor a gold account)
Actually, to get the "Destroy-Plus" ending, you had to play either the Datapad app for iOS or the multiplayer mode in order to get enough EMS value to see the extra cutscene. There is no explanation in-game to tell you this.

Everyone got utterly confused in the weeks after the game's release, with plenty of people saying they got the extra ending without playing multiplayer. According to the datamined files, there are not enough war assets in the game to give you the 8000 TMS/4000 EMS threshold needed to see that extra scene. Even with judicious planning beforehand and doing completionist runs of the prior entries, you can't get more than 7750 TMS.

BW later came out and (I kid you not) addressed the complaints with a forum post where they half-heartedly said the EMS value would be lowered to 3100 via the EC, and told everyone to chill out.

Synthesis, meanwhile, takes the highest amount of EMS besides the extra cutscene to unlock.
 

ServebotFrank

New member
Jul 1, 2010
627
0
0
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
DustyDrB said:
They realized they were way over their heads in making all the choices we made really matter and instead just said, "Fuck it, this isn't happening. You know what we need? Green beams that make organics into part-machines. That'll get people talking."

Though I still maintain that the remaining 99% of the game is awesome. But still, some of the results of choices we made were soooooo freaking disappointingly tiny (like Mass Effect 2's end-game choice. What the actual fuck?).
I know. How about the option to
give it to the Council? "I got proof, guys."
Well two things with that. One, indoctrination would be really risky. Two, what if EDI/Miranda sent a copy of the IFF to the Illusive Man? Then he has a way there, by the time Council sends someone to verify it, Cerberus probably will have changed the IFF somehow (Who knows), take what they could and blow the place up, or just place a bunch of ships ready to blast Council ships the moment they get close. So yeah, logically it wouldn't be a good idea unless you want indoctrinated folks.
 

Wayneguard

New member
Jun 12, 2010
2,085
0
0
Eddie the head said:
Didn't it have like only 2 people working on it? Like the lead guy and someone else? And the other major plot points had like every one else? So yeah I am going with it wasn't checked well.
I heard this as well. A supposed source from the writing team posted somewhere that the original ending was scrapped in favor of one written by Casey Hudson and maybe the lead writer (can't remember). The point is, most of the writing team had no input whatsoever, according to the source. Take it with a grain of salt; the truth of this cannot be verified at all.
 

Vie

New member
Nov 18, 2009
932
0
0
Time: I'll lay down cash that EA was pushing for as early of a release date as they could squeeze.

Money: They figured people would buy it regardless of what the ending was like.

Closeness: The guys making it knew all the bits of story at the end that didn't go into it, when you work very closely on a project - particularly one as long as the ME series - it's sometimes hard to step back and remember that your audience doesn't have all the information you have. I'll bet they were happier with the ending than we were at least in part because they knew more about what happened than they actually put in. They believed we would get it all from the implications, and that the lack of information would actually allow us to paint our own picture of how the universe was changed.


That or somebody was a giant douchebag who just wanted to fornicate with our craniums.
 

sunsetspawn

New member
Jul 25, 2009
210
0
0
crazyrabbits said:
I agree with you.

sunsetspawn said:
The "broken" EMS issue is solid evidence of this. Before the EC "fixed" the issue, you actually had to PAY MORE for the best ending where Shep lives. (yes I'm considering having to either purchase a gold account or purchase an iPhone + app paying more because I neither have an iPhone nor a gold account)
Actually, to get the "Destroy-Plus" ending, you had to play either the Datapad app for iOS or the multiplayer mode in order to get enough EMS value to see the extra cutscene. There is no explanation in-game to tell you this.
Didn't I just say that? What country you from? They speak english there?
;)

Multiplayer (on the 360) and/or iOs requires money.

Best ending requires multiplayer or iOs

Best ending requires money.

Does Marcelis Wallis look like a *****?


Pulp Fiction quotes aside, I was robbed of my gaming experience as I actually made every decision that should have gotten me the golden ending without any spoilers, but I didn't get it because reasons. I did an almost perfect ME12&3 paragon run and chose destroy because my ending was supposed to be Shepard wiping his taint and nuts with Reaper face, AND Keith David had been pushing me towards destroy the whole time while Martin Sheen was being a dick and wanted control. Destroy was the right motherfuckin answer!


My first (and therefore most meaningful) playthough was robbed due to EA, so all of my future EA purchases have to be preceded with the question, "can I pirate this instead of buying it?"

This is unfortunate because I can be a bling bling big spendin' ************ if a company makes me happy. I bought all the DLC for ME2 because I was being made happy despite the game's shortcomings. The story may have been weak but there wasn't a corporate suit shitting all over my face telling me that it's raining.

Jesus, just thinking about this is making me mad all over again.
 

sunsetspawn

New member
Jul 25, 2009
210
0
0
Vie said:
Time: I'll lay down cash that EA was pushing for as early of a release date as they could squeeze.

Money: They figured people would buy it regardless of what the ending was like.

Closeness: The guys making it knew all the bits of story at the end that didn't go into it, when you work very closely on a project - particularly one as long as the ME series - it's sometimes hard to step back and remember that your audience doesn't have all the information you have. I'll bet they were happier with the ending than we were at least in part because they knew more about what happened than they actually put in. They believed we would get it all from the implications, and that the lack of information would actually allow us to paint our own picture of how the universe was changed.
No way. Good writing is hard to miss. If all of the pieces were there it would show. They didn't know shit and were making it up as they went. Prometheus had a similar problem, but because it was only a two and a half hour movie with forgettable characters and not a 150 hour game trilogy with lovable characters, nobody gave too many fucks. Even the EC really doesn't assist the actual story IN THE GAME, and it just answers the after-the-game stuff (and it still wasn't that good)

As further proof, the old man scene is supposed to be on the same planet the ship crashes on, and the people are supposed to be the descendants of the crew, and yet that was retconned away with the EC. The moons in the sky actually give this away as they are identical. The ship was supposed to be damaged beyond repair on an uncharted planet. They retconned that away by just having the ship take back off from the planet. At this point I'm rambling but the ending was supposed to be sad even if Shep lived because he/she would never be reunited with the crew. They made room for a happy ending, and it doesn't really matter if you like that or not, but it DOES matter because the writers clearly didn't give a fuck either way.

Why am I still in this thread?
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
ServebotFrank said:
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
DustyDrB said:
They realized they were way over their heads in making all the choices we made really matter and instead just said, "Fuck it, this isn't happening. You know what we need? Green beams that make organics into part-machines. That'll get people talking."

Though I still maintain that the remaining 99% of the game is awesome. But still, some of the results of choices we made were soooooo freaking disappointingly tiny (like Mass Effect 2's end-game choice. What the actual fuck?).
I know. How about the option to
give it to the Council? "I got proof, guys."
Well two things with that. One, indoctrination would be really risky. Two, what if EDI/Miranda sent a copy of the IFF to the Illusive Man? Then he has a way there, by the time Council sends someone to verify it, Cerberus probably will have changed the IFF somehow (Who knows), take what they could and blow the place up, or just place a bunch of ships ready to blast Council ships the moment they get close. So yeah, logically it wouldn't be a good idea unless you want indoctrinated folks.
Cerberus doesn't have the resources to straight up fight the Council. And Miranda and EDI are squarely on your side. And I'd like to see Cerberus ships navigate that jump with a Core. It makes sense as an option.
 

ServebotFrank

New member
Jul 1, 2010
627
0
0
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
ServebotFrank said:
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
DustyDrB said:
They realized they were way over their heads in making all the choices we made really matter and instead just said, "Fuck it, this isn't happening. You know what we need? Green beams that make organics into part-machines. That'll get people talking."

Though I still maintain that the remaining 99% of the game is awesome. But still, some of the results of choices we made were soooooo freaking disappointingly tiny (like Mass Effect 2's end-game choice. What the actual fuck?).
I know. How about the option to
give it to the Council? "I got proof, guys."
Well two things with that. One, indoctrination would be really risky. Two, what if EDI/Miranda sent a copy of the IFF to the Illusive Man? Then he has a way there, by the time Council sends someone to verify it, Cerberus probably will have changed the IFF somehow (Who knows), take what they could and blow the place up, or just place a bunch of ships ready to blast Council ships the moment they get close. So yeah, logically it wouldn't be a good idea unless you want indoctrinated folks.
Cerberus doesn't have the resources to straight up fight the Council. And Miranda and EDI are squarely on your side. And I'd like to see Cerberus ships navigate that jump with a Core. It makes sense as an option.
ME3 showed that they have quite alot of resources. There's also the fact that the Omega 4 Relay is in the Terminus Systems, a system that (Established in ME 1) hates the Council. Sending a fleet to takeover the Station would cause a war with the Terminus Systems, Cerberus isn't a Council Group so Terminus wouldn't care at all if their fleets passed through.
 

airrazor7

New member
Nov 8, 2010
364
0
0
DioWallachia said:
What is the opinion of the rest of the writers that were left behind? do they truly accept the fact that the ending was made without their input and now they have to take the blame and repair it?
#1: crappy ending should have been peer reviewed

#2: no, they are unhappy with how things turned out.


[link]http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/[/link]
[link]http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/8/20/3256678/original-mass-effect-writer-talks-about-the-possible-endings-for-mass[/link]