Ex-BioWare Devs Reflect On Mass Effect 3's Controversial Ending

[AuthenticM]

I always thought it boiled down to two things:

-Mass Effect 3, as a whole, is kind of a mediocre game. It wasn't a fantastic game marred by the last 10 minutes, it was a game with a bad start, a middling-to-good middle, and a bad third act (which I'd classify as starting with Priority: Thessia). It's a game where the mission and story structure feels very rote and "just-so," in an attempt to neatly tie up every plot thread. Sometimes this works out mostly well (Tuchanka and Rannoch, which are the high points of the game by far); a lot of times it doesn't (running around the Citadel listening to people wish they had artifacts you'd go play Space Pac-Man or run through a multiplayer map to find; random sidequests for ME2 squadmates or old NPCs that mainly served as "remember me?" moments).

-The ending itself was super contrived. The means are contrived (humans find the plans for a Reaper Off Switch on Mars and start building it without knowing what it does or how it works, it operates via space magic, it does three highly specific borderline magical things with convenient nodes at the end of each walkway but they 'unlock'' via a readiness system that doesn't really seem to line up with how it works), the way it's conveyed is contrived (a hologram representing a ham-fisted symbol for "you can't save everyone" robotically explains what the point of everything is and your choices, while Shepard stands with a dazed expression, unquestioning the entire time), the conflict is contrived (organics vs synthetics is merely one conflict among many in the galaxy, and one you could have made significant inroads on; if the underlying theme is "created vs creator," then where do the rachni stand? The krogan were uplifted, do they count as "creations" who need to be purged? What about genetically enhanced people like Miranda, or intentionally created biotics? No, it's all specifically about robots with computer chips for brains; never mind that none of the three options actually solve this supposed problem at all). Then a magic explosion happens and you're supposed to just go, "oh okay, something bright and shiny happened, so the story is over and the problem is solved. My crew is on a space jungle now, I guess that represents the Garden of Eden or something to symbolize a new world starting, but I shouldn't think about this at all."



Oh and the final image of the original ending was a text box pop-up telling you to buy DLC.


edit: I suppose if I had to list a third thing, it'd be what others have brought up: the ending, both through intention and accident, seemed to completely "end" the universe that the player had gotten invested in. The intent was that it ended by an act of rebirth, being replaced by a brave new world following the choice you made; the accident was people pointing out that what was literally portrayed on screen would logically result in a massive amount of death and suffering, if not the wholesale destruction of the galactic civilization you were trying to save.

Click to shrink...

I mean, the entire mechanism at the center of how the game ends, the Crucible, is a complete nonsense device. How does it work? Why does interacting with it in three completely absurd ways (blow up a component with a pistol, grab a conduit and disintegrate yourself, swan dive into a beam of light) result in any of the endings you get? Why is the Crucible even built in a way that would allow more than one option in the first place, regardless of how insane any of the triggers are? Why didn't the console you first try not work, only for there to be a conveniently placed elevator that took you up to a platform where all of this ending nonsense plays out?

Never mind Star Child being there to condescendingly tell you to use the damn thing you were already there to activate in the first place. Seriously, just forget the color of explosion for a moment. The entire concept of the Crucible falls completely apart if you think about it for even a few seconds.

Click to shrink...

These two posts sum it up well.

I'll add to them that the final turret sequence, in the middle of talking to your squadmates before the final showdown, is emblematic of ME3's design issues.

 

[Samiya]

All of this is why they should retcon the Citadel DLC to take place after the main story

Click to shrink...

Citadel Epilogue Mod

A mod which makes the Citadel DLC play like an epilogue.

www.nexusmods.com

Works *really* well with the MEHEM ending mod

 

[Hailinel]

Second chapters are supposed to be character focused, not plot focused. Empire Strikes Back doesn't really advance the plot of STAR WARS forward, in fact the only real advancement comes with the ending twist. Yet, most consider it the best in the series because of how it fleshes out its characters and the world.

Click to shrink...

It's not an either/or proposition. Characters can advance as the plot does. ESB advances the plot by showing how Vader and Palpatine gain the upper hand while Luke takes a side-trip that sets him on the path to becoming a proper Jedi, and ends with a confrontation between Luke and Vader that, while Luke loses the battle, the narrative both advances his character and the plot with the revelation that Vader is his father, which has meaningful impact going into Return of the Jedi. The core storyline of the war with the Empire is intrinsically tied to the character narratives that take place in ESB and don't take a backseat like the Reaper threat does in ME2.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

It's not like the first Mass Effect didn't have its fair share of problems, convenient nonsense and silly writing, anyway.

I still remember traveling around half galaxy looking for a way to deal with the Sovereign, only for the resolutive weapon turning out to be... "the Conduit", basically a backdoor to your starting backyard on the Citadel, which in itself turned out to be some sort of "lure for hermit crabs" left in the middle of few developing civilizations to catch their attention.

And I was never really sold on the idea of SEVERAL super advanced civilizations developing to the point of mastering interstellar travel and more, but still sitting quietly on a mostly unexplored giant spaceship, without any apparent effort to investigate every possible corner, nook and cranny of it.

Still, one would expect that after the initial success and the scrutiny the original game was put under, future efforts would go into fixing the rough edges of the narrative, rather than ramping up the absurdities exponentially at each subsequent sequel.

 

[Ascenion]

My biggest issue with ME3 is that literally ME2 is wholly irrelevant in the context of ME1 and 3. ME2 should've been about pulling the galaxy together instead of doing it while it's on fire in ME3. The idea that we're curing the genophage and brokering peace between the Geth and Quarians in a matter of days because of the reapers is utter bullshit. To follow up on this issue, why the hell were the reapers re-contextualized from pure villains to sympathetic anti heroes almost? Literally made no sense, especially with the you can't comprehend bullshit sovereign was playing at in ME1. I just don't get it.

 

[NotVeryFriendly]

Yes but this was sort of unprecedented no? Fans have been vocally disappointed in franchise after franchise (pick your favorite. Stars Wars prequels are an obvious one).

The decision here in essence was that there is no author, the story we made is irrelevant, and we will mess with it however to please the angry fans. That is a pretty meaningful thing insofar as you may consider a game story as an example of narrative art.

I don't disagree with you that this is out of business concerns, but the intense fan feeling of ownership that caused these business concerns is just wild to me, and probably overall destructive on balance.

Click to shrink...

I definitely agree it was unprecedented, but the circumstances surrounding the ending were unprecedented. The ending of the original release was never 'art' because we know exactly how it was produced with Walters and Hudson rushing a decision on the ending in near-isolation (in total opposition to how most of the story was created) with a goal of creating 'speculation from everyone' and pushing purchases of DLC content. Although I absolutely agree a game's story can be art, there should not have been any illusions about whether this ending was 'art' because (to reiterate) it literally ends with a CTA to buy more, was developed in a way that the rest of the story wasn't, and the OP makes it quite clear that even internally, the ending wasn't something that many on the creative team were happy with even if they aren't going to throw Walters and Hudson under the bus.

Fans own the decision of what to do with their wallet, and if there had been any integrity in the creation of the story then there wouldn't have been a rewrite, but the ending came about through a rushed isolated decision from somebody who clearly didn't understand the franchise as well as they thought (and yes I'm very aware of their incredibly significant role). Any idea that the ending wasn't just about creating 'speculation from everyone' and pushing DLC or future sales should have been dispelled when the concluding remark of the series appeared and was literally a message to buy more. Even in saying that, I don't see at all how trying to create an ending which more suitably caps off the series and is more tonally consistent than the original nonsensical ending (in the release of the extended cut - and even then it could only do patch-work) dilutes the meaning of 'narrative art' when its affect was to try and make the art not totally inconsistent.

 

[Arkain]

In the years between the release of Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 3, I played through ME1 a total of 4 times and ME2 a total of 3 times. They were some of my favorite games. However, after playing through ME3 once and being extremely disappointed in its structure, its story and how it tied everything together (more particularly everything related to the Crucible and the Reapers), I haven't touched any of the games.

Knowing that it all leads to ME3, somehow makes the previous games worse for me.

 

[Min]

It's not the last 30 minutes that are the problem. The entire game is filled with palette swap scenarios depending on your actions of the first two games (Robot Rachni Queen, Mortis being swapped in for another scientist) and the race against the clock plot just didn't lend itself to a space opera narrative. Instead of seeing interesting new cultures and planets we're given war-torn environment after war-torn environment, just kinda boring setting wise.

I get there are scenario constraints based on budget and time, but ME3 is just kinda bad.

 

[spam musubi]

It's funny to read this now because there was a lot of anti-backlash to the ending at the time, people aggressively defending it against the backlash. Seeing the original creators come out and say they weren't happy with it either kind of redeems the backlash against the ending.

Of course, none of this justifies the harassment and poor treatment of devs that resulted from the backlash. In many cases these poor outcomes are not the decision of one person or even a collective of devs, but a result of poor management. Shame the series ends on such a poor note, because it greatly reduces my desire to replay it, making everything else before it feel moot in some way. (That plus the dated game design of "talk to someone, walk through 5 hallways shooting things with waist high walls, talk to someone again" of 2 and 3. The formula wore really thin)

 

[BossAttack]

It's not an either/or proposition. Characters can advance as the plot does. ESB advances the plot by showing how Vader and Palpatine gain the upper hand while Luke takes a side-trip that sets him on the path to becoming a proper Jedi, and ends with a confrontation between Luke and Vader that, while Luke loses the battle, the narrative both advances his character and the plot with the revelation that Vader is his father, which has meaningful impact going into Return of the Jedi. The core storyline of the war with the Empire is intrinsically tied to the character narratives that take place in ESB and don't take a backseat like the Reaper threat does in ME2.

Click to shrink...

The Empire "gains the upper hand" in the very opening of the film, the rest of the film does not advance the larger conflict between the Rebels and the Empire. Its all personal conflict. Its about Luke learning what it means to be a Jedi and Han & Leia dealing with their feelings for each other. The film is not about advancing the larger galactic conflict.

ME2, is about the personal conflicts within the galaxy. Its about the genophage, the Quarian v. Geth conflict, Cerberus, the Council, and the personal issues of our squad mates. It is providing greater context to the world that will become extremely relevant during the finale when we are forced to resolve these conflicts. This cannot be stressed enough, but the Reapers are not the point of Mass Effect. The Reapers are merely a framing device that forces the player and the galaxy to confront the issues within themselves. Mass Effect isn't about stopping the big bad Reapers, its about how you resolve the Genophage or whether you are able to make peace between the Quarians and the Geth.

In the end, the Reapers should have been quickly resolved based on how you dealt with the internal conflicts within the Galaxy itself. The series should not be focused on finding the next big MacGuffin to defeat the evil space monsters.

 

[Deleted member 17184]

The original Star Wars was a stand-alone. It wasn't labeled Episode IV until later prints, after it became a series. But when it came time to write Empire Strikes Back, it was written with the core conflict of the rebels and Empire and of Luke and Vader squarely in mind, and that both of these threads would be resolved in the following movie.

The Mass Effect trilogy is like if, instead of the events of The Empire Strikes Back, Luke, Leia, and Han just fucked off to another part of the galaxy and had some adventure that was almost completely inconsequential to fighting the Empire, the Empire itself is only ever tangentially discussed, and Vader doesn't show up at all.

Click to shrink...

First of all, thanks for a good discussion. I remember that when ME2 was in development, BioWare compared it to ESB. This is from Greg Zeschuk:

"Yeah we have definitely designed it in that fashion," he told us. "If you recall, Empire Strikes Back was the darker chapter and that is how we designed the ME2 story and experience: to try and make the player reflect on the challenges of the character. If you put ME2 next to the original it is definitely a darker, harder game."

Click to shrink...

If you think about it, the inspirations are all there. ME1 (comparing to "A New Hope") establishes three conflicts; Saren is the game's Vader, Sovereign is the Death Star, and the Reapers are the Empire (just hinted, but never confronted). ME2, just like ESB, doesn't necessarily focus on the evolution of these conflicts. Harbinger represents Vader, The Illusive Man has hints of the Emperor, and the Reapers are again just like the Empire. You deal with them, but both stories are much more personal. Luke finds out about his father just like the loyalty missions are about your crew, and that directly affects their chances of survival in the end.

ME3 takes a bit of a different direction as Drew and some other key members leave the team. But here you still have similarities: you now directly fight the Reapers (the Empire in the case of TROJ), and then Shepard/Luke go resolve their conflict at the core location. The biggest difference, I think, is how ME3 ends some arcs during the game, while TROJ solves all of them during the actual ending.

 

[nihilence]

remember, they have only themselves to blame.

Casey Hudson On Finishing Mass Effect 3, DLC Plans

ME 3's executive producer discusses the importance of narrative, his studio's future, and new game modes.

www.gameinformer.com

not in any way like traditional games, where you can say you got ending A, B, or C?

that was simply not true.

Click to shrink...

It wasn't a, b, c
It was r, g, b.
Totally different.

 

[nullref]

Mass Effect 3 was an entertaining romp, but very unfulfilling from a narrative standpoint.

Half-way through the game I realized that Bioware was in over their heads and wasn't going to be able to conclude all of the little stories in a satisfying way. It actually didn't bug me as much as I thought it would since I developed a sort of schadenfreude towards the end where it was entertaining to see just how sidelined certain plot elements would become.

Also let it be known that the Indoctrination Theory is amazing and basically gave Bioware a gift from the gods in terms of creative retcon potential.

Click to shrink...

I agree—the ending gets all the hate, but I found the entirety of ME3 disappointing from a story standpoint, outside of a few sub-plots and sidequests. I went into the game wondering how they'd possibly deal with all the consequences of my choices in the previous games, to find they seemed to just punt on most of them in some lame way for the sake of development expediency and simplicity.

 

[Garlador]

For me, the main reason the ending was so unsatisfying has nothing to do with space magic or the big macguffin crucible thing, it's just that the space kid dropped massive new information on you that completely and totally recontextualised the entire story told so far, and then the story just ends. The whole game series just ends. The characters don't get to talk about it with each other, and Shepard themself barely has time to say two sentences on it before it's time to make the decision.

It's frustrating. The story changes, and no-one gets to react to it except outside the game, on forums.

Click to shrink...

I'm curious how newer players will react, because DLC like Leviathan - while not a total fix - really did help introduce some of these concepts a LOT earlier. It may have been retroactively added in after backlash, but it DOES help recontextualize the Reapers a bit before the last info dump does.

didn't they change it after the release ? how is the "new" one ?

Click to shrink...

Yes, and significantly. While the means and ends remain mostly the same, they're given a bit more context and, more importantly, a lot more post-final-choice epilogues to show the ramifications of your choice on both your squad and the galaxy at large.

It still may not be a homerun of an ending, but I've seen FAR fewer people upset with the ending when the Extended Cut version is the version they experience first.

 

[Jawmuncher]

To this day I've never seen the extended endings. Beat the game at launch as was fine with what I got as I didn't expect much.

however, always thought it was a bummer they cut out the FemShep Mother dialog option. That's a really good convo.

 

[Deleted member 13101]

Yeah it was a bummer at launch. Considering the game is about 35 hours of playtime ("short" in today's terms) people reached bummed-out status within hours and the train got rolling early.

None of this is going to change in the legendary edition though. Might I recommend having a cupcake on launch day. By the time you finish it you'll feel right as rain. There will be people who will end up enjoying it for what it is.

 

[Tuorom]

People didn't have problems with the ME3 ending only because it didn't account for many permutations, but also because regardless of any possible variation from the "main plot" being accounted for, it was intrinsically a bad ending in many ways.

Click to shrink...

Essentially.

I really disagree with the sentiment that " "There's no way to tightly 'wrap up' something that has been accumulating and branching and growing for so long like that. "

Sure you can, the problem was the ending in ME3 is just bad.

 

[HellofaMouse]

that patrick moran quote, ooof.

sums up the last decade of bioware pretty well doesnt it.

 

[Metroidvania]

They did announce it as a trilogy in 2005.

Click to shrink...

Right, but then that makes your claim of 'impossibility' even more ludicrous.

I'm not saying they had to have it planned out to the individual words Shepard used in the ending (games grow and evolve, certain things work and certain things don't), but not having the game's ending planned until the very last months of the trilogy was super poor, and definitely could have been avoided.

 

[RoseBleue]

I'm curious how newer players will react, because DLC like Leviathan - while not a total fix - really did help introduce some of these concepts a LOT earlier. It may have been retroactively added in after backlash, but it DOES help recontextualize the Reapers a bit before the last info dump does.


Yes, and significantly. While the means and ends remain mostly the same, they're given a bit more context and, more importantly, a lot more post-final-choice epilogues to show the ramifications of your choice on both your squad and the galaxy at large.

It still may not be a homerun of an ending, but I've seen FAR fewer people upset with the ending when the Extended Cut version is the version they experience first.

Click to shrink...

so you reckon the ending will be satisfying for someone who will play the trilogy for the first time with the remasters and doesn't know anything about the original ending ?

 

[Tuorom]

Here's a good retrospective I remember reading

Mass Effect Retrospective 1: The Ages of BioWare - Twenty Sided

www.shamusyoung.com

 

[Cranster]

so you reckon the ending will be satisfying for the someone who play the trilogy for the first time with the remasters and doesn't anything about the original ending ?

Click to shrink...

The only reason why people will accept the endings now is because they have advanced warning to keep expectations low.

 

[Garlador]

so you reckon the ending will be satisfying for someone who will play the trilogy for the first time with the remasters and doesn't know anything about the original ending ?

Click to shrink...

Maybe.

Anecdotal, but my wife played the whole thing long after the Extended Cut with all DLC and she was happy with the ending. Same for my best friend.

And, hell, even I'm okay with it now and I was absolutely heartbroken over the original ending.

 

[julia crawford]

Over time i have honestly only come to think that the story in Mass Effect is just not very good. I've played the games i think 3 times and generally i honestly do not think that any setup of the story is particularly good or novel. I do feel like the grabbed a handful of really nice places and experiences, but severely brought down by extremely predictable and set rules of gameplay, progression and structure. Only a few things really stand out and break that pattern. This leaves the story feeling super by the books and with no real place to provide solutions to themes or conflicts or questions other than something that allows for combat, enemy variety, resource gathering (whether of materials or people's trust or even people in the first place), etc. Honestly the most fun parts are the ones with no real narrative consequence, because they are the tiniest of moments made just for a single mission that perhaps says has a couple of lines about whatever sci fi idea someone bounced around. Frankly one of my favourite missions is walking on that old ship leaning on the edge of a precipice, which for at least a few minutes the game lets you stop and look around and the only thing there is you, a carcass of ages long gone, and emptiness all around.

And also... the genophage was so poorly handled. You never ever get any real conversation that thinks through the scale of the genophage. The most you get is a team member saying that no, we tried to be mathematical about it. And no Krogan is involved. An event that is a clear, evident case of genocide of a disprivileged soldier class after their usefulness to the nobles of galactic military warfare. And the best conversation you had about it was that you know what, we tried to make them better for themselves. They were terrible before too!! It's just an extremely poor realization of that idea and burdened throughout with "talking" about it in the most sophomoric, maybe it was for the best? we'll never know kind of ways. And towards the end it just becomes it was wrong, it was just wrong, with none of the vocabulary to express the millions of ways it was wrong. Felt like nothing more than presenting a horror for shock and none of the ability to dissect why it was horrifying in the first place.

Man it just makes me sad. Sorry for the rant. I know they were bound by development realities and company structures and ideals of market expectations and a childish fanhood like everyone else is.

Anyway. I hope they drop the fetishistic militarism of ME3.

 

[Keldroc]

More and more I've learned that the real complaint people have about the ending of Mass Effect is that there's no "correct" choice, because all three have a drawback or result in some kind of loss. Which is...entirely in keeping with the tone and character of the series.

If it were up to me, the ending choices would be even more extreme versions of themselves, and they wouldn't be choices. Whatever sum total of all your decisions through all three games added up to is what would happen, because that's what you were choosing all along without knowing it.

 

[Deleted member 17184]

Right, but then that makes your claim of 'impossibility' even more ludicrous.

I'm not saying they had to have it planned out to the individual words Shepard used in the ending (games grow and evolve, certain things work and certain things don't), but not having the game's ending planned until the very last months of the trilogy was super poor, and definitely could have been avoided.

Click to shrink...

As someone said (and I agreed), they announced it as a trilogy, but never planned it as one. I'm not defending that choice, but I do think it was impossible under their circumstances. The pre-EA BioWare had no way of knowing they could make a Mass Effect game after ME1. How can they outline something without knowing they can execute it? I even mentioned they were almost bankrupt close to release. Even if they did plan something, it would've changed radically by the time they got to the ending of 3, considering how much the franchise and its visual language changed between ME1 and ME2.

And if you think about it, Drew Karpyshyn had planned an ending to ME3 that was never used, and I'm not even sure it was shared with other writers as they don't seem to know much about that version.

 

[ravnelis]

While I hated the ending, the worst part of ME3 was the DLC structure.

Who made the decision to lock out Javik behind DLC? Fucking insane considering the main plot. I wish this person tried to defend this decision in the interview.

Leviathan also should have been a part of the main game. It made absolutely no sense to release it after the game.

Splitting up and locking out content behind DLC paywall was as huge problem with ME2 as well, but the game was excellent without the DLC (and I played it on PS3, so I had some DLC included on disc).
I only saw ME3 dlc on YouTube since I was totally broke at the time and I could only afford to play it because a friend borrowed it to me.

Still, I will buy the Legendary Edition day 1 to finally experience all games in their best possible forms. Also, to support Bioware on the slim hope that the next ME will be good and to prevent papa EA from taking the company behind the barn...

 

[Meia]

In the years between the release of Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 3, I played through ME1 a total of 4 times and ME2 a total of 3 times. They were some of my favorite games. However, after playing through ME3 once and being extremely disappointed in its structure, its story and how it tied everything together (more particularly everything related to the Crucible and the Reapers), I haven't touched any of the games.

Knowing that it all leads to ME3, somehow makes the previous games worse for me.

Click to shrink...

This is very much where I'm at. Played female Shep first, then male, then female Shep renegade third. Had saves ready for ME3 when it hit, played through it, then just kind of walked away from the franchise. What the game did well, it did REALLY well. I can kind of see how one of the writers felt that the whole game was the ending to the trilogy, and it kind of was for the biggest parts I cared about(Mordin, Tali, Wrex). Even the little moments were fucking great(always had Garrus/Tali in my parties in the previous games, then seeing them get together in the last just put a smile on my face). But man, the overall meta was just a fucking mess. Really liked the Illusive Man in 2, and they just kind of shit all over that in 3.


I know they did the free DLC to "fix" some of the logical errors the original ending had(every other race in the galaxy dieing as the result of 2 of the original canon endings was fun), but the whole thing was just messy. You do a big, sweeping behind the scenes idea with saving both the Quarians and Geth, to the point that there's literally a hidden counter keeping track of things you did in all 3 games(even things you wouldn't think could factor into this), and only if you checked just enough boxes could you pull the mega-paragon out of your ass for a happy ending. Feels GREAT, only for one of the endings they give you a "choice" for kind of fly in the face of that. Worse, this ending is actually likely the only one a paragon Shep would even pick, as you're not forcing something on the entire galaxy and not becoming enslaved yourself to possibly continue the cycle. There's just a design disconnect there, and you don't have to squint too hard to see it.

 

[blacklotus]

Just posting to say that the ending was absolutely shit.

Everything that didn't end in a narrative coherent battle where the different decisions and outcomes of the full 3 games were at play, would be received incredibly poorly.
It's a fucking space opera. Fucking ending it like it deserves.

Why the hell didn't I get to see JAck's biotic squads fucking up everyone? Or the Elcor Tanks? etc. etc.

Made no sense. It was totally anti-climactic in its mechanics and on the choices as well.

As far as I know, It never happened and I'm staying into the Mass Effect indoctrination theory waiting for the conclusion of the story.

 

[Hailinel]

As someone said (and I agreed), they announced it as a trilogy, but never planned it as one. I'm not defending that choice, but I do think it was impossible under their circumstances. The pre-EA BioWare had no way of knowing they could make a Mass Effect game after ME1. How can they outline something without knowing they can execute it? I even mentioned they were almost bankrupt close to release. Even if they did plan something, it would've changed radically by the time they got to the ending of 3, considering how much the franchise and its visual language changed between ME1 and ME2.

And if you think about it, Drew Karpyshyn had planned an ending to ME3 that was never used, and I'm not even sure it was shared with other writers as they don't seem to know much about that version.

Click to shrink...

Why would they announce it as the start of a trilogy if they were that concerned that they would never be able to execute on it?

It honestly, seriously, doesn't take that much to have forethought regarding games you're planning years down the road that you may or may not have the chance to produce. And again, I said this before, but Xenosaga was originally planned to be six games. They ultimately had to change course and end with a trilogy, but the fact is that they had a planned outcome that they intended to execute on. Six games was far too ambitious a goal in the end, particularly for a studio that was literally still getting off the ground while developing the first game, but "They didn't know if they would be able to make the rest of the trilogy" is not an excuse for failing to plan ahead for the trilogy you announced.

 

[Arkanim94]

it's pretty obvious that the vast majority of the creative and technical effort was spent on wrapping up the Krogan and Quarian/Geth storylines.

after those two high moments the game completely loses steam, and the ending choice is a retraux of the Quarian/geth moral dilemma, ffs Bioware!

 

[Garlador]

I know they did the free DLC to "fix" some of the logical errors the original ending had(every other race in the galaxy dieing as the result of 2 of the original canon endings was fun), but the whole thing was just messy. You do a big, sweeping behind the scenes idea with saving both the Quarians and Geth, to the point that there's literally a hidden counter keeping track of things you did in all 3 games(even things you wouldn't think could factor into this), and only if you checked just enough boxes could you pull the mega-paragon out of your ass for a happy ending. Feels GREAT, only for one of the endings they give you a "choice" for kind of fly in the face of that. Worse, this ending is actually likely the only one a paragon Shep would even pick, as you're not forcing something on the entire galaxy and not becoming enslaved yourself to possibly continue the cycle. There's just a design disconnect there, and you don't have to squint too hard to see it.

Click to shrink...

I admit, I do a lot of headcanoning for my Destroy ending to assume the Geth had back-ups and will be just fine, and that the Normandy wouldn't function without EDI, so... Starkid was off-base on that (I would totally just mod their presence back into the game if I had the PC version). But, yeah, they just sort of throw in last-minute consequence, otherwise it would be a no-brainer choice... and most people still picked Destroy, I think (because that's what we were working towards for 99.9% of the series).

 

[Patapuf]

it's pretty obvious that the vast majority of creative and technical effort was spent on wrapping up the Krogan and Quarian/Geth story lines.

after those two high moments the game completely loses steam, and the ending choice is a retraux of the Quarian/geth moral dilemma, ffs Bioware!

Click to shrink...

Jep. These parts stick out quality wise. The rest of the narrative of game is really underbaked, to put it mildly. Even with the DLC and everything.

 

[Deleted member 17184]

Why would they announce it as the start of a trilogy if they were that concerned that they would never be able to execute on it?

It honestly, seriously, doesn't take that much to have forethought regarding games you're planning years down the road that you may or may not have the chance to produce. And again, I said this before, but Xenosaga was originally planned to be six games. They ultimately had to change course and end with a trilogy, but the fact is that they had a planned outcome that they intended to execute on. Six games was far too ambitious a goal in the end, particularly for a studio that was literally still getting off the ground while developing the first game, but "They didn't know if they would be able to make the rest of the trilogy" is not an excuse for failing to plan ahead for the trilogy you announced.

Click to shrink...

We're on guessing territory now, so I'll simply say that I don't know. I don't know why they announced it as a trilogy. Maybe it was all a super risky but ambitious plan they hoped to execute.

But as to the point of not being able to have an outline, I don't doubt they wanted to, but couldn't. I think people severely underestimate how many resources pre-EA BioWare had. They could only work on the first game and only had a publishing deal for that one with Microsoft. They could not afford to plan ahead.

You mentioned Xenosaga, but at the very least Monolith had the backing of Namco at the time. They were owned by them. BioWare didn't have the luxury to be owned by their publisher.

And yes, planning ahead does require resources. It's more work. Maybe they could've taken away some of that from the game, but it could've been worse as a result. Again, guessing territory.

 

[Chettlar]

As far as I recall from the Geoff Keighley behind the scenes stuff, it was a case of the producer Casey Hudson and lead writer Mac Walters locking themselves into a room and doing the ending without any form of peer review or input and then just running with their ideas ("lots of speculation for everyone" which became a meme). So these new statements underscore that this was very much a top-down decision with minimal feedback from the rest of the team at Bioware.

Click to shrink...

What on earth is wrong with Bioware's management.

 

[Son of Sparda]

I can imagine some users in ME Remaster OT trying to help people decide what they should do in ME1 and 2 and how big of an effect those things will have in the end and just the thought of it cracks me up lol

- "So should I save the Rachni queen? Will it have a big pay-off in other games?"
- "That'll give you a huge +50 Galactic Readiness! You should definitely save her."

 

[Hailinel]

We're on guessing territory now, so I'll simply say that I don't know. I don't know why they announced it as a trilogy. Maybe it was all a super risky but ambitious plan they hoped to execute.

But as to the point of not being able to have an outline, I don't doubt they wanted to, but couldn't. I think people severely underestimate how many resources pre-EA BioWare had. They could only work on the first game and only had a publishing deal for that one with Microsoft. They could not afford to plan ahead.

You mentioned Xenosaga, but at the very least Monolith had the backing of Namco at the time. They were owned by them. BioWare didn't have the luxury to be owned by their publisher.

And yes, planning ahead does require resources. It's more work. Maybe they could've taken away some of that from the game, but it could've been worse as a result. Again, guessing territory.

Click to shrink...

Even just writing basic plot points for ME2 and 3 on a napkin would have been more planning than Bioware apparently put in. That's what I'm saying. Bioware put in less than the minimum effort anyone could have asked for, budgets be damned.

 

[JasonV]

Who made the decision to lock out Javik behind DLC? Fucking insane considering the main plot. I wish this person tried to defend this decision in the interview.

Leviathan also should have been a part of the main game. It made absolutely no sense to release it after the game.

Click to shrink...

There was a time when people would outright deny that it was even possible a developer would cut out key parts of a game to sell it later as DLC.

Even just writing basic plot points for ME2 and 3 on a napkin would have been more planning than Bioware apparently put in. That's what I'm saying. Bioware put in less than the minimum effort anyone could have asked for, budgets be damned.

Click to shrink...

The planning was abysmal top to bottom. I remember people finding out Talia face was a google image search stock image. And one of the space/snow backgrounds in the prologue was literally the first hit on google search was snow. They just pasted it in as a back ground.

 

[Deleted member 17184]

Even just writing basic plot points for ME2 and 3 on a napkin would have been more planning than Bioware apparently put in. That's what I'm saying. Bioware put in less than the minimum effort anyone could have asked for, budgets be damned.

Click to shrink...

If you go with that argument, then Drew Karpyshyn did plan some plot points. His focus was on the Dark Energy story. So they did what you wanted them to do. It just wasn't put into practice.

 

[Garlador]

I can imagine some users in ME Remaster OT trying to help people decide what they should do in ME1 and 2 and how big of an effect those things will have in the end and just the thought of it cracks me up lol

- "So should I save the Rachni queen? Will it have a big pay-off in other games?"
- "That'll give you a huge +50 Galactic Readiness! You should definitely save her."

Click to shrink...

I do think it's funny that if you spare the Rachni Queen, yet sabotage the Genophage, one ending has them taking over Tuchanka...

 

[Steven]

I wish they would retcon it for the Legendary Edition. Not sure there's anyone that would be mad at it being retconned if they did it right. It's because of how good the rest of the game was that made the ending even worse.

 

[Son of Sparda]

I do think it's funny that if you spare the Rachni Queen, yet sabotage the Genophage, one ending has them taking over Tuchanka...

Click to shrink...

Stuff like this makes me wonder how they are gonna address these things in the new ME (if it does ever come out). With Andromeda they had a new beginning, but at least from the teaser, it seems like ME5 will be a direct continuation of ME trilogy and with so many variables, it sounds like an impossible task.

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

The ending took the brunt of the critique but the premise of ME3 is bad at its core.

The Reapers are back. How did they get back?

Answer: They just flew back. They could have flown back any time they wanted since the Rachni Wars. It only takes a few months and there are no negative consequences to them doing so.

Oh no, how will we defeat the Reapers? What is our plan?

Answer: We randomly, just literally right now now found ancient blueprints to a thing. We don't know what the thing is. We don't know how to turn the thing on. We don't know whether it will work and if it works, what "working" even means. It requires enormous resources and effort to build.

We are gathering a bunch of armies and soldiers and tech specialists. What for?

Answer: some people are helping build the that thing we don't know the purpose of. The rest are just there to act as brief meat shields for shepherd in the final mission just in case a switch needs to be flipped or something.
-----------------------------------------------------

Part of what stung at the time was that they promised it wouldn't be a deus ex machina ending. But it absolutely was. They thought they were avoiding clichr because Shepherd dies and it's not a happy ending or w/e but "we found the magic control station that will blow up all the bad guys" is in fact an incredibly widespread scifi cliche.

 

[AbsoluteZ3R0]

I still can't bring myself to replay through the ending. If just stop playing before the raid of Cerberus. My headcanon is that citadel is the true ending.

 

[Arkanim94]

What on earth is wrong with Bioware's management.

Click to shrink...

bioware magic (tm)CR

 

[Halbrand]

Biggest problem with the ending is not the limited amount of endings but that without Indoctrination Theory, Synthesis and Control are bullshit

 

[PumpkinPieAddict]

Maybe I'm just a horrible hack of a creative person but I finished Mass Effect 3 a little after release (with the ending DLC). I didn't mind the ending too much at all (very hazy on the details now). Of course I had an issue with the direction of self containing Mass Effect 3's plot a bit (chasing the child).

I've read some interesting ideas of Shepherd discovering he was part reaper or the "indoctrination theory". Maybe I'm suffering from KOTOR2 PTSD where the ending just didn't matter but Mass Effect 3's was ... fine?

 

[Samiya]

Stuff like this makes me wonder how they are gonna address these things in the new ME (if it does ever come out). With Andromeda they had a new beginning, but at least from the teaser, it seems like ME5 will be a direct continuation of ME trilogy and with so many variables, it sounds like an impossible task.

Click to shrink...

I don't think they'll t address any of the ending stuff in ME3, just sweep as much as possible under the rug.

I still can't bring myself to replay through the ending. If just stop playing before the raid of Cerberus. My headcanon is that citadel is the true ending.

Click to shrink...

mods my friend. MEHEM to go along with Citadel Epilogue is really good. If you get the Legendary Edition, then wait with playing ME3 until modders have converted these mods to the LE version.

 

[Enduin]

Stuff like this makes me wonder how they are gonna address these things in the new ME (if it does ever come out). With Andromeda they had a new beginning, but at least from the teaser, it seems like ME5 will be a direct continuation of ME trilogy and with so many variables, it sounds like an impossible task.

Click to shrink...

Simple they just create a canon world state. There's no way or reason for why they should take players ME1-3 world states into account, there's too many permutations. They could barely even honor them and explore them realistically within the trilogy itself, no way they can with a new game and potential set of games. Best solution is for them to pick and choose from the various outcomes that best suit this new story they want to tell in the universe and go from there.

 

[Son of Sparda]

I don't think they'll t address any of the ending stuff in ME3, just sweep as much as possible under the rug.

Click to shrink...

I don't think they can really do that tho. Like if the old crew members are coming back then you can't just ignore Tali or Legion entirely. Or if Wrex is coming back, you can't ignore whatever happened with genophage, etc.

Simple they just create a canon world state. There's no way or reason for why they should take players ME1-3 world states into account, there's too many permutations. They could barely even honor them and explore them realistically within the trilogy itself, no way they can with a new game and potential set of games. Best solution is for them to pick and choose from the various outcomes that best suit this new story they want to tell in the universe and go from there.

Click to shrink...

This would make sense from the design/development point of view, but it kinda goes against the whole idea of continuing the story, if the story that they are continuing doesn't reflect or acknowledge the story of the player from trilogy.