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

[anaphysik]

The obvious answer for a follow-up Mass Effect game:
You play Blasto, within a fictional film (or set of films) produced in the Mass Effect universe. Since it's fiction, Blasto's adventures can deviate from the canon timeline, they can reflect a distorted view of reality, and they can play a little looser with the lore like any schlocky movie might. Plus your imported Shepard can show up as guest star VI that can mimic the real Shepard's behaviour with 7% accuracy.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

Justicar idea could be interesting, could even be parallel to ME3...have a Justicar that's avoiding the bulk of the war and just running amongst it in their own journey, coming across relatively minor but important conflicts on the way. Would allow them to avoid explaining the 'true canon' of the situation since it's still happening around you.

Probably won't happen, but it's plausible. Be interesting to see how the series continues considering all the roadblocks put in place by the choices...even if most seemed retconned in ME3.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Loving the podcast, though sometimes I can't tell if Susan was being sincere or if she was just trying to play devil's advocate to make panelists back up their assertions. Whatever the case, it made for great listening.
Wholeheartedly agree that most of the complaints about BioWare come from a place of love for the series.

Mostly just raising questions and exploring ideas. I wouldn't call it devil's advocate in every case, because I certainly don't know what the "right" answer to any of this is. But I think it has value to really understand why we think what we do about this whole situation. Plus, it's our last one of these, so we need to resolve as much as we can.

 

[Susan Arendt]

@Susan

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

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

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

 

[Hyrist]

-snip-

Credit to the man for the formatting I'm going to use here.

FTC complaint

I'm of two minds on this issue:

First, the man was well in his right to complain about the issue. Legally, this is potentially snaring and there is precedent for it.

Personally, I think it's overkill, and ruins any sense of good faith between customer and company. But if this guy's in the beleif that that's already ruined, then seriously, why not? The government is there to keep companies from backstabbing their customer, and there are a lot who feel fairly betrayed by five years of hype that was ultimately let down upon.

Art Vs. Product

Why are we arguing this? The answer is Product.
A piece of art is a work created with the intention to exist as a statement. Whether or not it sells to a consumer is ultimately a non-factor.

A product is a craft work with the intention to sell to a consumer.
Ask EA which this video game falls under.

I'm sorry, I know we try to mar this topic with other sort of struggling debates but this is the plain and simple of it. BioWare may be artists, but they are crafting a product, and a product should appeal to its consumer base.

I want to take this one step further and state that this is not some ground-breaking precedent we're setting by this issue either. Movies have been changing their ending behind closed doors due to back reaction from selected release audiences for years. And endings often get changed pre-production - these both are altered from the original image of director/producer's work and still become stronger movie for it. The 'origonal intended ending' are often re-releaced as 'Director's Cuts' or "Alternate Endings" after theater release.

Some examples:

- Did you know that the Crop Duster from Independence Day was supposed to fly his crappy old plane, and NOT a fighter jet, into the Alien Craft? They had to do new takes and add some inventive film cutting to get the new ending to work.

- Dodgeball,a comedy originally had an ending in which the Cobra's won by a cheap shot WITHOUT the Double Fault and sudden death ending. The producer was told to go back and change the ending to appeal to its audience, hence why the ending causes a parody of 'happy endings' - because the writer wasn't happy that he had to change his message. But guess what, it happened, and the movie was better received for it.

But happy endings are not always the default Revision, nor does it half to be.

- The Butterfly Effect, also had an altered ending. In which the Director's version had a far darker idea for an ending than the actual theatrical release. I recommend watching both and sizing them up against each other.

Conclusion:

And here's the beef - there is no alternate ending to compare to here. Even Movies, a product that has a captive audience, have learned the value of having multiple endings when the concept of 'art' vs the concept of 'product' are clashed. A Video Game, which is already well reputable for having multiple options for endings, should have absolutely zero issues about adding additional endings for the sake of their consumer base. You can always call your intended ending 'canon' or 'director's version' and be done with it.

The issue here is that players were sold on the concept and promise of choice and consequence, and the last mission of that game both took that away from them in the present, and reduced all their previous decisions and consequences in the past down to a numeral value. - this was an incredibly poor design choice on BioWare's part and something they are being appealed to in order to remedy that fact.

Because, let's face it, other than this incredibly glaring issue the game is stellar.


A Personal Note: Susan, you're an awesome person, but your presence of opinion in this particular podcast was a bit suffocating. It bled into other people's sections and you provided what I felt was unnecessary pressure on the contrasting opinion (put bluntly, it felt like you were pushing on the guy's insecurities rather than the issue's flaws.) Someone who perhaps was more involved or had a more in depth perspective might have provided better counter-arguments for your statements.

Have you considered bringing on guests for hot topics like this? I just felt that the conversation lacked a bit of depth of perception because it was mostly observatory.

Anyways, thanks to whoever took the time to read this. I don't post in these forums often as they are fairly well maintained and I rather like to have my contributions, well, contribute something.

 

[Cartographer]

Just finished the Podcast, has anyone considered if the "Day-30 DLC ending ploy" (as I'm going to call it if it happens) is a ploy to destroy second hand sales? In other words, you buy the game, but nothing you do gets the ending till they release it, so if you do trade it in after a week, you won't have seen the ending, you have to wait for it to be released.

 

[Hyrist]

I would like to point out that your definition of art excludes the Mona Lisa as well as all of Shakespeare's plays.

You're right -but what you fail to point out is that each of these works catered to their audience. In the spoken cases, the Mona Lisa was a commission, and the Shakespearean plays were built to appeal to the love of tragedy/comedy of the times (not to mention both works were done in times in which the audience was both far narrower with limited manner of feedback.)

Yes, they are works of art, but they were products first and foremost.

And I'm sorry, but it's also a very poor analogy to be comparing painting to video games. The Mona Lisa will always have an original, and be an original - it was designed for one person. Video games are designed, at their core, for Mass Production.

Saying the artist's say is more important than the Artist is taking George Lucas's side in his butchering of his work post-mortem. (IMO, George should leave his work alone, not because we should leave things alone, but that he should listen to the demands of his fans - and the FANS are saying leave it alone.)

1. The crop duster would never have been able to pull the trick of straight up into the beam of light. Would have stalled. The fighter jet makes much more sense. Which I realize is just a bonus to the fact that a fighter jet looks much cooler, but still.

2. And the ending was better for it. Both endings work for the movie, but the winning ending is just much more satisfying. And hilarious, let's not forget hilarious.

And both are good reasons for revising the ending, no? There are plenty of concise reasons why Mass Effect 3 should have more, different endings for what it has, whether you view it like a storytelling element, like a movie, or a video game, which already has precedent for multiple endings.

My argument here is that BioWare has no solid ground to stand on without going as far to say that their developers are more important than their customers. The precedent, the trends of the medium, and their own statements previous to launch are all against them here.

I mean, if they really want to say that they stand behind their product - they might try to view that as noble, but they're harming themselves.

The best way I see them getting out of this is to honestly create multiple endings for the game that are either patched in, or put in as part of additional DLC. It's not a perfect solution on behalf of the customers, but it will meet their demands and compensate them for the time they to do it justice.

 

[burningdragoon]

Not done listening yet, but I wanted to post this (again) before I forget by the end. I did some math on the ending(s). For funzies.


<quote=me>

"This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're taking into account so many decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C." - Casey Hudson, ME3 Project Director

ending A B or C is exactly what we got.

we were lied to why wouldnt we have a problem with that? why wouldnt we ask for ending options we were promised I.E. not A B or C.

Technically you got ending A(1), A(2), B (1), B(2), or C. Just different enough to be true. Don't like it? Tough. Learn to not trust marketing people.

Hell you can go a lot deeper than that depending on how you look at it.

Let's say you only consider the "ending" to be everything after your final choices. So that means there are 7 endings that are different, right?
1) Destroy - Very Bad
2) Destroy - Bad
3) Destroy - Good
4) Destroy - Good + Shepard lives
5) Control - Bad
6) Control - Good
7) Synthesis

But wait! The people who get out of the Normandy at the end aren't always the same. So the Synthesis ending would have 7 distinct variations (Joker + Edi + 1 of the seven other squadmates). Just including that we already on 13 different endings. Adding just the other two(three) "good" version of the ending where it's Joker + 2 squadmates, we get 56 different possibilities each (8 potential people stepping out first, 7 potential people stepping out second). I think the bad versions have only 1 person step out, so that's about 8 variations for them. So now it's:

Ending 1: Destroy - Very Bad
Endings 2-9: Destroy - Bad (EDI can't step out so it's only 7 variations)
Endings 8-50: Destroy - Good
Endings 50-92: Destroy - Good + Shepard lives
Endings 92-100: Control - Bad
Endings 100-156: Control - Good
Endings 156-162: Synthesis

Holy crap, that's a lot of endings. Then if move the marker for the "beginning" of the "ending" to the conversation with the starchild (it's different' based on your EMS and if you destroyed the collector base in ME2) you have even more! Holy crap!

Now, taking it one (large) step even further. If you consider the entirety of Mass Effect 3 as the ending to the Mass Effect series, then you have a incredible amount of "endings."

Okay, there you go people. BioWare didn't lie about how many endings there were.

Please no one assume I'm defending the ending or the "promise" that was made. I'm simply pointing out that it's very silly to attach to one statement and use that as a basis for being "lied" to.

Edit: did some math wrong. I think it's right now.

The final act of a play is not the ending. By the same token, the final arc of the Mass Effect 3 is not the ending.

http://storyfix.com/story-structure-series-4-%E2%80%93-the-most-important-moment-in-your-story-the-first-plot-point

http://storyfix.com/story-structure-series-5-part-2-of-your-story-the-response

http://storyfix.com/story-structure-series-7%E2%80%A6-the-part-3-attack

http://storyfix.com/story-structure-series-10-part-4-the-final-act

The destruction of Earth and the Mars incident are Part one. Everything else Shepard does is in Response to the attack on Earth and the incident on Mars until after Thessia. THAT is when he goes on the Attack. Both the Cerberus bases as well as the assault on Earth right up until the Conduit Redux are part of the Attack arc. It's not the ending. Only by utterly abusing the definition of END can you get those numbers.

First off all, I hoped counting every slight variation as a different ending made it clear I wasn't serious in saying there were more than the 7 ending. It was more poking fun of the idea that we were literally lied to.

Second off, the 162 (already a ridiculous number) endings of slight variation is all from the "actual" end, so I'm seeing how that's abusing the definition of "end". Abusing the definition of "alternate ending" most certainly, but that was my point. Casey Hudson said no A,B,C and we got several very slightly different ways for each A B and C to go down. Moving the "ending" line back far enough to include all of Mass Effect 3 was purposely extreme, but it's also likely what CH was referring to in that statement. Lot's of significantly different variations on how everything can go down. Also, it's not a rule that only the very, very end is the end. Even Susan says in her review that Mass Effect 3 is the ending the series deserves.

And finally, the magic cupcakes endings (by the way, Susan, I love that term) may have been crappy and very ambiguous, and it really seems like the galaxy as we know it is completely over, but that doesn't mean some of the bigger choices made weren't going to have an effect on what happens afterwards. We aren't told anything and that sucks. It seems like it doesn't matter, and that really sucks, but that doesn't change the fact that some big events have occurred that will have some effect on the future.

 

[Rhedd]

Great series of podcasts guys, really enjoyed listening to your thoughts and experiences. Susan did a really good job of moderating the conversation too: making sure everyone got a say and that the conversation kept moving. Definitely gained a new listener here.

The question of whether Bioware should change the ending got me thinking. There?s been a lot of talk about if it would set precedence or if Bioware would be harming their integrity by caving in to pressure.

It made me wonder, is everyone so sure that artistic vision is what we?re getting with these endings? Surely there are already multiple factors that go into game development that can alter the outcome from what the creative team wanted; whether it?s time, money, or technical constraints. Why should fan feedback not also form a part of this change?

Are we sure that what we got was Bioware?s intended vision? As late as last October when the scripts leaked we know the Reaper?s motivation was to stop dark matter from destroying the galaxy: that the first civilisation Reaperised themselves to prevent other races reaching a technological state where they would be exacerbating dark matter spread. Was Bioware's true artistic vision for the reapers anti synthetics/organic or space eco warriors?

We know that as late as November of last year they had a boss battle with the illusive man planned, a longer dying conversation with Anderson (which is still in the games data), a showdown with Harbinger, an indoctrination ending, and a longer investigation conversation with the catalyst. Were these elements cut for artistic integrity or because of money and time constraints?

The ending, in my mind, shows a drop in quality uncharacteristic for the series that suggests it was pieced together from numerous assets originally intended for another vision.
I guess, ultimately, if Bioware are happy with what they?ve done; if this is the ending the entire creative team at Bioware wanted, then no amount of fan displeasure should sway them from their course. I might hate the endings, but I would back them wholeheartedly in standing behind their product.

But if their original vision was something else, and changes were made due to constraints, or simply because they wanted to produce an ?oooh thinky? ending then maybe they should give serious consideration to acting on fan complaints.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Rhedd]

There?s a lot of issues that people have about the pre-release hype for mass effect 3. The first post of the link below contains 10-20 referenced quotes from Bioware execs which simply don?t come to fruition within the game.

http://social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/355/index/10056886/1

I don?t know if I?d call them lies either. Then again, I?m used to game developers becoming over enthused and exaggerating their product. I always take these things with a grain of salt, lol.

Also, while some of these quotes are misleading they can be explained away simply enough with semantics: as you pointed out with the 16 ending or A B C ones. I doubt the FTC guy has a leg to stand on.

I enjoyed the hell out of the game: when the sour not from the ending dies down, I?ll go back and play through it, see if my opinion?s changed.

 

[AngleWyrm]

There's been a lot of fakery and posturing going on, deluded ego driven lies about who is In Charge, who's Idea it was, who's got the Master Plan.

Did you invent Mass Effect 3? NO YOU DIDN'T. No matter who you are, including every single member of the development team.

The only thing that matters to a game company is that people buy their video games.

 

[TheRealGoochman]

What they could do for the upcoming Mass Effect games could be exploration into Dark Space....seeing what is beyond the Milky Way

 

[Scars Unseen]

In regards to Mass Effect vs Harry Potter:

I do have to say that I completely disagree with the idea that games should be treated differently because you are assuming the role of the character instead of merely witnessing the action. That is the exact same argument(or at least one of them) the "Think of the children!" crowd use when gunning for censorship. It may be one of the reasons that people are reacting the way they are, but I don't think its a valid argument for trying to force Bioware's hand in the matter.

Oddly, as a community we are against censorship, but apparently have no problem with pressuring companies for revision. Probably ties in with the existing tradition of patching.

 

[Reion 13]

I got a question. What about the the other galaxies? Are there reapers there to? And if not, what makes the milky way so special? Just a thougth.

Hurray for unrelated question!

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

@Susan

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

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

"lying" implies intent. It implies an intention to deceive.

Exactly.

 

[Scars Unseen]

The problem with the whole ass getting kicked by the Reapers thing is it doesn't work with the idea that the Protheans were able to survive as a warlike culture against the reapers for over 100 years, and that was with NO central command structure with the reapers controlling all primary relays. Javik never comments that your warfighting tech is all that primitive, just your communications. Whereas the galaxy as is will be done for within 10 years at the outside with the overwhelming superiority of the reapers. They've taken out the main planets with all the best shit within a matter of months.

I'm not sure where you're coming from on that. The entire series puts a strong emphasis on the fact that Prothean technology was far more advanced than ours. By the time of their demise, they had actually unlocked the secret of the Mass Relays themselves. Our advancement rode on their coattails

Setting that aside, the current cycle is playing out completely different than probably any other since the Keepers were put in the Citadel since we were the first ones not to lose control of the Citadel from the outset. This may seem to be a benefit until you realize that, without a central communications hub, it is impossible to put all your eggs in one basket like Shepard did at the end of ME3. So the Protheans were doomed from the start, but their compartmentalization meant that the Reapers had to fight each cell seperately, where we just threw everything we had at them.

 

[Scars Unseen]

The problem with the whole ass getting kicked by the Reapers thing is it doesn't work with the idea that the Protheans were able to survive as a warlike culture against the reapers for over 100 years, and that was with NO central command structure with the reapers controlling all primary relays. Javik never comments that your warfighting tech is all that primitive, just your communications. Whereas the galaxy as is will be done for within 10 years at the outside with the overwhelming superiority of the reapers. They've taken out the main planets with all the best shit within a matter of months.

I'm not sure where you're coming from on that. The entire series puts a strong emphasis on the fact that Prothean technology was far more advanced than ours. By the time of their demise, they had actually unlocked the secret of the Mass Relays themselves. Our advancement rode on their coattails

Setting that aside, the current cycle is playing out completely different than probably any other since the Keepers were put in the Citadel since we were the first ones not to lose control of the Citadel from the outset. This may seem to be a benefit until you realize that, without a central communications hub, it is impossible to put all your eggs in one basket like Shepard did at the end of ME3. So the Protheans were doomed from the start, but their compartmentalization meant that the Reapers had to fight each cell seperately, where we just threw everything we had at them.

It's in the lore that the Asari could in fact build a mass relay if they so chose to fully suss out the research, but they have a ban on doing so. Certainly not because the underlying materials science isn't there. Moreover, the Protheans didn't unlock the secrets of the mass relays until AFTER the reapers attacked. Without the force concentration, they wouldn't have even lasted as long as the Turians did. 5 Reapers per planet would have been enough.

I'll cede the first point. I wasn't aware of that fact. On the second though, my point was that by concentrating our forces in one location by the end of ME3, we've eliminated any possibility of resistance should that battle not end well. The Protheans didn't have that possibility, and while scattered forces means that no victory was possible at all, it also meant a slower extinction event. To the Reapers, this is all irrelevant, as the difference between a year and a century is insignificant in the face of millennia of existence. It's not so much that we were so much weaker than the Protheans, but rather that once the core resistance is gone(immediately in the case of the Protheans) there is no need to rush, as extermination is assured.

In fact, thinking of it that way, we outlasted the Protheans because they were defeated the instance the Reapers arrived and took their leadership. We managed to rally the forces for a desperate offense as well as to fully construct the Crucible, a feat the Protheans were unable to manage. Also, we don't know how long our extinction would last. Just losing the bulk of our military force doesn't mean the entire galaxy would be extinguished the next week or anything. It would take time to wipe out every planet and colony in the galaxy. Possibly centuries.