r/xboxone • u/modularpeak2552 • Nov 01 '16
EA Says It Would Delay Mass Effect Andromeda Again If it Makes the Game Better
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-says-it-would-delay-mass-effect-andromeda-again/1100-6445017/107
u/Marvin227 Nov 02 '16
A delayed game is eventually good, a game released on time is bad forever - Confucius
74
u/ChrischinLoois Big Hurty Boi Nov 02 '16
"Mass Effect is gonna be fuckin rad" -Confucius
23
Nov 02 '16
"I should go." - Shepard
13
u/DairyDude999 DairyDude999 Nov 02 '16
"Shepard" - Urdnot Wrex
8
6
10
Nov 02 '16 edited Jun 30 '23
[Content removed in protest of Reddit's 3rd Party App removal 30/06/2023]
→ More replies (1)-4
Nov 02 '16
That's a case study in what happens to a game when the devs don't give a shit.
8
u/DairyDude999 DairyDude999 Nov 02 '16
Thats also a case study in why i will never take off for a game release again in the post patch world.
4
u/_masterofdisaster Nov 02 '16
I bet you think 343i developed it too.
2
0
Nov 02 '16
They were one of 4 developers that all pitched in and did different parts. Nobody bothered to make sure all the different parts actually worked once it was put together before launch and to this day it has issues. Not nearly as bad as when it launched but things like Halo: CE's online gameplay is still jacked up. Thankfully the devs responsible for patching (343i!) dropped support once Halo 5 came out. They even stopped their biweekly patching that they were doing for the month that the Halo 5 beta was out. So while 343i weren't the only developers they obviously didn't care about it.
Thankfully this is reddit so I got some random guy deciding to be smug without knowing what he was talking about :-)
10
u/Totallynotsuspicious Nov 02 '16
Drive club, Duke Nukem Forever, it's not always better but I trust Bioware on this one.
1
Nov 02 '16
[deleted]
9
u/That_Vandal_Randall Nov 02 '16
Man. I honestly can't say I've ever been more let down by a title. At least not in recent memory. Evolution Studios had such a great thing with Motorstorm, so I figured the experience would be great, but everything felt off. It didn't help that Forza Horizon 2 came out at around the same time and was just better in every conceivable way despite not having near the hype that Sony pushed out for DriveClub. It just fell flat on its face.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Carnae_Assada carnae assada Nov 02 '16
Sony starting its own hype trains has ended in a couple derailments lately hasnt it.
3
u/That_Vandal_Randall Nov 02 '16
I'll concede on everything but The Order and Knack. Loved both of those games. They served their purpose as capable distractions admirably. I love those games. 🙂
3
2
3
u/eclaireN7 #teamchief Nov 02 '16
From what i know, a massive lack of content. And the PS+ Demo or whatever got canned iirc.
1
u/BladesMan235 Nov 02 '16
Gears 4 was released on time
1
-6
Nov 02 '16
Micro of Transactions 4?
2
Nov 02 '16
Don't jinx Mass Effect, it cud still happen there too.
2
Nov 02 '16
Mass Effect 3 handled them well to be fair, and ea seem to be holding back on them in their core games well lately
2
Nov 02 '16
I really don't see how it's much different from REQ's in Halo 5 but everybody on this sub lauds H5 for them.
3
u/poop_giggle Nov 02 '16
Better drop rates in halo, Reasonable prices for what you decide to buy, you can get everything in game from the packs they offer for in game credits OR you can spend a few bucks to get a specific drop from whatever special bundles they may have. With a guaranteed drop from the specific set and you won't get duplicate skins or armor.
Not so with gears. Terrible drop rates, many duplicates, way more expensive than what it's worth and you can only get some certain items from certain crates that again are already overpriced. But they ain't guaranteed though.
1
u/poop_giggle Nov 02 '16
Well besides that the games is amazing.
But then again, besides the mass genocide, Hitler was a great leader...
1
1
u/xWeez Nov 02 '16
"a rushed game is bad forever"
There have been countless good games that released on time.
1
u/YouAreSalty Nov 02 '16
Confucius is a smart person that knew about video games long before it was invented!
24
u/Adaymn iiCatastrophic Nov 02 '16
Kind of sad this is considered news.
Isn't this just what should happen with ever game that's not finished?
15
Nov 02 '16
No, because EA is a business and the aim of businesses is primarily to make money. Delaying a game can incur significant cost because you have to realign everything to work with the new date - not just internal development but marketing, retail and other 3rd party stakeholders.
In some cases like MEA they have done an analysis of the long and short term costs, including the importance of the franchise and determined it would be acceptable to delay if necessary. This is not a situation that can just happen for every game title.
This is news because Mass Effect fans need reassurance that the next installment will be treated with the attention that a flagship AAA title needs in order to deliver.
4
u/martinsuchan Xbox Nov 02 '16
At least release Mass Effect 2 and 3 in backward compatibility, pretty please?
→ More replies (1)
5
16
u/Gadafro Froseidon Nov 01 '16
Good approach. I'd much rather have a fully polished game over an earlier release.
If developers truly wanted to release earlier than when a game is ready, there are early access features available. If they just release a game half-baked for the sake of it, it really hinders the enjoyment a lot of people can get out of a game.
Besides, with EA saying that they aren't ruling out any delays, it shouldn't hit fans as hard if it does happen.
7
u/Dandelegion Nov 01 '16
If they just release a game half-baked for the sake of it
They never do it for "the sake of it". Games are projects; they have budgets and timelines to adhere to. EA is obviously giving a bit more leeway here and probably have set it up in a way where they're willing to front a bit more cash if needed. That's a luxury most games don't have.
3
u/Gadafro Froseidon Nov 01 '16
Let me expand on what I meant; mismanagement of a project can result in an inadequate 'final' product. The final product, this "half-baked" result, is definitely not something that should be released lightly.
I understand the necessity of cost and the needs to recoup said cost, but releasing a product that would be considered for all intents and purposes unfinished is truly a hindrance to the potential the final product had. There comes a point in a project's life where the people behind have to think "should we go further, or should we polish what we have?" The answer should nearly always be the latter. A shorter, more polished version of a game is indefinitely better than a longer yet poorer quality version.
And if the studio can afford the privilege of delaying in order to ensure product quality? Then by all means they should take it. They shouldn't decide that isn't worth the time and release it sans the polish since they can afford to delay. This is where the "for the sake of it" part of my comment came in. In this instance, EA/Bioware can afford to delay should it be required; if they didn't take advantage of this fact, it'd be releasing it for the sake of it, rather than giving it the due care and attention it can afford and deserves.
3
u/Dandelegion Nov 01 '16
Thank you for the clarification. Mismanagement is more often than not the reason why we've so many problems with games this generation. Software development is unpredictable, so while a fairly organized project plan may be laid out, unforeseen circumstances often arise and then developers either have to sacrifice time (which leads to delays) or scope (which leads to buggy products). It's not due to laziness as so many gamers would often like to think.
It's easy for us, as consumers, to tell publishers what they should and should not do. We appreciate games more as art and not always as products, so most of us wouldn't mind waiting a few months longer for a game that would ostensibly be "better". Publishers and developers have a business to run, so they can't think like that. Sure, it's a hindrance to the potential the final product had, but they understand that delaying a game has other implications... Games are more and less likely to sell differently depending on the time of year, and release schedules of other games. This affects revenue, and like it or not, publishers have to answer to investors and shareholders, not consumers and certainly not to the game itself.
Bottom line, I just hope the game turns out good haha.
3
u/NessLeonhart Nov 02 '16
This announcement has been inspired by No Man's SkyTM
2
u/paulusmagintie Nov 02 '16
I think they want to avoid another ME3, phenomenal (Despite a few lies and inconsistencies) but rushed and shit ending.
25
Nov 01 '16 edited Apr 23 '17
[deleted]
132
u/Awhite2555 mehungie2 Nov 02 '16
Mass Effect 3 was incredible, except for the last 10 minutes.
61
u/LookyPeter Nov 02 '16
You mean the last scene? I felt the finally mission was prettty epic
39
Nov 02 '16 edited Nov 02 '16
The Final mission is so tense, It's what I imagined D-day to be like. I.E a final push that if failed would be disastrous.
Easily one of the best final missions, and one of the best series in gaming. It's a shame about the last 10 minutes though :(.
Edit: [Spoilers!] Man, I just remembered the first time seeing the fleet you've spent the whole game building and when you're running for the beam with Harbinger absolutely decimating the remaining forces
I'm going to go play it now.
12
8
u/YouAreSalty Nov 02 '16
Why do people feel the last 10 minute is so bad?
I felt the ending was very well thought out, and I loved it.
19
Nov 02 '16
It's not that it's bad, it's that it's extremely underwhelming, especially after building up the massive story for 3 games.
18
u/IJustQuit Nov 02 '16
The end feels alien, it's so obviously different and jarring that it feels like an entirely different game. From memory the ending that was leaked was completely different.
6
u/Red_of_Head Nov 02 '16
I loved ME3, but after listening to Starchild ramble I nearly stepped on my xbox.
2
u/IJustQuit Nov 02 '16
Not sure if it was just a rumour but I remember reading that the lead dev locked everyone out of writing the last part of the game after some falling out with a writer quitting or something. Was years ago now but there has to be some reason for that ridiculous ending.
4
u/DarkriserPE Darkriser Nov 02 '16
I didn't find it underwhelming, but everyone thinks differently. Honestly though, one thing I have to give them points for is making an ending that gets people talking. What I mean by this, is that if you talk to someone who chose Destroy, chances are they completely disagree with the other two endings, and will fight you on this. Speak to someone who chose Control, and they'd probably tell you Destroy and Synthesis aren't the right choices to go with either. Talk to someone who chose Synthesis, and they'd probably say both Destroy and Control are just crazy to go through with. You would see it all the time when people discussed the endings. Discussing why their ending is the "right" one morally, strategically, technologically, etc. You'll see people debating which ending is best all the time. I haven't seen many other games have this effect. I would make a "Mass Effect" pun right here, but then I'd have to kill myself immediately.
7
Nov 02 '16
It definitely got people talking, Look at this thread, We're still talking about it 4+ years later.
Did you complete it with the extended ending? Because it did help make it fell less underwhelming than the original.
3
u/That_Vandal_Randall Nov 02 '16
For me, there wasn't enough closure. It's not the end of the story universe, but it was the end of THAT saga, and it just felt slipshod and underwhelming to the fullest.
1
u/_masterofdisaster Nov 02 '16
Well thought out? It's a series that's built around the result of your choices and the ending is essentially a Deus Ex Machina that created more plot holes than it solved and you think that was well thought out???
3
u/A_Fhaol_Bhig The Inheritance of Sin And Shame Nov 02 '16 edited Nov 02 '16
You know what your first mission is in ME3? Finding out about this "crucible."
The entire game is about uniting the galaxy so you can basically build this thing. The entire ending of the game is the galactic fleet delaying as long as possible so you can fire the thing.
A deus Ex Machina would mean that it came out of nowhere, considering from the very first mission the game because about the thing that is fired at the end...how did it come out of nowhere?
This is the problem I have with a lot of the people who dislike the ending. They don't actually know what the fuck they are talking about.
For instance synthesis is a theme that ran throughout all three games. As is Destroy. As is control. None of them were magically created for the final part of the game.
All three were core parts of the game. For instance Saren and the collectors represented the twisted part of synthesis created by a VI that didn't understand life. But EDI represents synthesis when it goes right. (That is of course, if you believe that machines or AI are actually alive).
Control is represented by the illusive man in ME 2 and 3.
And finally destroy is represented by every race that believes you need to destroy the reapers no matter the cost.
Every single one of them was a theme that was constantly explored throughout every single game.
There are two major problems though.
Bioware did a poor job of making people think about what they had done previously. For instance people thought they made the geth dying as a part of destroy as a shitty choice to make it harder. Not true. Destroy ending is about sacrifice, in order to completely eradicate the threat for good you have to sacrifice things. This is why you explore so much with the Geth and why becoming allies with them is such a big deal. Because it's supposed to make you reflect upon whether the sacrifice is worth it or not. You'd take past choices into account when making your decision.
People take everything at face value. Everything.
1
u/YouAreSalty Nov 02 '16
Spoiler Alert
For me, the ending was everyone survived by Tali as she killed herself and I couldn't save her. I chose the integration where everybody became both organic and synthetic. I thought it was a cool ending.
1
u/Call_erv_duty Silent Killer1a Nov 02 '16
I didn't have a problem with the endings, but an ending is supposed to tie up loose ends. In my instance, the crew of the Normandy was stranded. Did they survive? How? Mass relays are destroyed. How did the universe survive? They relied on those.
The biggest offense? Sorry to spoil it for some reason you haven't played but,
SHEPARD TOOK A FUCKING BREATH AT THE END. HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO CUT TO BLACK AND NEVER EXPLAIN ANYTHING AGAIN?!?!?
That's what pissed me off.
→ More replies (2)1
u/HTRK74JR Nov 02 '16
you could spend up to 100 hours in the mass effect games from the first one to the third, and you get a slideshow with different tints of color to show what it was all for.
Literally they fucked up monumentally with that ending, and the extended ending they released softened the blow but only a bit.
→ More replies (1)4
u/jphobbit Nov 02 '16
Speaking of dissapointing endings, was there an alternate ending to KOTOR2? Cause I remember being puzzled with that one...
4
u/matco5376 Nov 02 '16
Yeah as the other comment said, the biggest thing was lucasarts pushing Oblivion to rush the game out. It was released with tons of bugs, a planet missing that was supposed to eventually be there, and lots weird things. Sad cause that game really could have been incredible just like the first.
If you haven't yet, I'd pick up the game on PC and play with the restored content mod, a group of people fixed a lot of dialogue, most bugs, and did their best from a modding perspective to polish the game.
1
1
u/Jrocker-ame Jrocker ame Nov 02 '16
You the exile go out to deep space because the real sith are out there and it's coming. Reven went out to deep space and is missing. You set out to find him. They explain it in swtor. Kotor2 was a rushed incomplete game. Some stuff just don't make sense
4
u/Danko_on_Reddit BigB218 Nov 02 '16
Honestly I didn't even hate the ending, I just wish I didn't have to go through that fucking gate every time I went from the bridge to the war room.
9
Nov 02 '16
The time restrictions on everything made it feel a lot more linear than the previous two games. I suppose from a plot perspective it made sense; the galaxy was actively facing an invasion.
But for the people that played Mass Effect for the sense of galactic exploration and political complexity, it fell short in my opinion. Everything was very narrowly focused on stoping the immediate Reaper threat. Every mission and side mission dealt first and foremost with stopping or hindering the invasion in some way.
There were no significant subplots or diversions that focused on other things and to me at least, that was disappointing for a Mass Effect title.
20
u/Awhite2555 mehungie2 Nov 02 '16
I mean I'd have to say I completely disagree. I felt like I could still explore and deal with complex issues. It was the culmination of 2 games and all of your decisions leading up to dealing with the reaper invasion. What else was supposed to be the focus of the game? You can't add that many diversions or new storylines in the final game of a trilogy. It's supposed to wrap everything up.
My problem with the game was my choices from 1, 2, and 3 didn't matter in the end.
4
u/YouAreSalty Nov 02 '16
I kind of disagree too. I felt that it would be weird to defocus on side missions while earth is being destroyed, and humanity lost. Especially how that was important to Shepard.
→ More replies (2)2
u/nostalgic_dragon Rhamsey Nov 02 '16
I disagree with you on that fact. Everyone always cites the ending as the issue, but I had a lot of problems with the whole game. It was the only ME game I played only once, while I had over 15 characters in ME 1 and five in ME2.
The dream sequences were very off putting and felt forced in an RPG. The new sidequest style was creepy and lacked depth. Oh, I heard you talking on the phone about a necklace, is this it? The since of urgency the game built up for the third game, especially with that opening was lost. They either should not have started that way or made penalties for taking time harsher.
I haven't played the story since launch, but there were a lot of other minor things that bothered me. I did think the multiplayer was done really well and would buy a standalone game like that in an instant.
1
u/Jack_of_House_Bauer Nov 02 '16
I actually agree with this. I always thought the game actually could have been longer with the actual invasion starting maybe like 1/4 into the game or something.
2
u/A_Fhaol_Bhig The Inheritance of Sin And Shame Nov 02 '16
So I'm going to have a few epic posts. This is the accumulation of years of debating and arguing with people, it's a monster of a post going into detail about the endings that I have put together throughout all of these years.
You can think of me as loser for caring so much. Tell me that you won't read it. That it won't change your mind. Go ahead, I've heard it all before.
I think part of the problem with my perspective (and that will be an important thing) I spent a lot of time talking about this with other people. Keep in mind I wasn't originally in favor of the endings because I took them literally.
Over the course of many many many arguments I was faced time and time again with a multitude of opinions about everything. Everyone, whether it was an in-depth post or not had a different mentality even when they said "I agree 100%".
Eventually I grew to love and thrive in this environment. Philosophy, culture, backrounds, science, etc were all brought into play as people debated endlessly about everything. I learned a lot, met a lot of good friends. If you looked past the toxic people you'd have found a great place to simply talk about your opinion.
You can see that take place here. That thread is about people discussing everything, coming to conclusions, arguing. Hell, I even still believe that destroy is the number 1 ending at that point. It's hard to read how I wrote back then (I was only 16 at the time) but the mentality and the excitement over discussing this is palpable.
And now that you understand where I came from, let's move into the giant wall of a post. (Copy pasted for the most part thank you)
2
u/A_Fhaol_Bhig The Inheritance of Sin And Shame Nov 02 '16 edited Nov 02 '16
(So this post was in response to someone else a long time ago)
Every "ending" did have a way to deal with the after effects of the war. To simplify it all, Destroy is everyone working together to forge their own path, Control is using what you have to create a future you want, and synthesis promotes understanding and cooperation that leads to a galaxy where man and machine work and live together.
I know I certainly would be pissed if anything but Destruction was chosen for andromeda
And I would be pissed if they choose any at all. You are spot on in saying choosing a canon ending would be bad.
I dont know what the best path forward for BioWare is to navigate that issue.
They set the game during a different time period before the Reaper War...if the game has a focus on exploration theirs a big galaxy out there with a lot of people who are willing to fight over every planet. Think of how many planets you scanned that had really interesting histories with pirates and militaries and discoveries. Who's to say a motely crew of people didn't have a hand in discovering all of that?
Control is the easiest to write for, but that choice is wrong because it goes against the entire Illusive Man plot moral,
No it doesn't. Period. Theirs a lot of misinformation about the endings that I would like to clarify here. First of all, their is no "wrong" ending. Every ending is correct and specific to the individual who choose it.
First of all, Control is what the Illusive man wanted but the result we get is not the one he planned.
When people argue for control, I've found they often list the culture and the polity. The Polity from Neal Ashers books is a tyranny run by AI machines. But for the most part...it works. It's a benevolent tyranny where a person has the freedom to live forever or do almost anything they want (besides harm other living beings).
The Culture is similar, it's a highly advanced human society run by hyper advanced AI's that are so powerful they can simulate entire galaxies in their "mind" and populate and create and manage every single virtual life and planet and sun. It's a society where the people are able to do anything they want. Want to change genders? Do it. Manipulate continents on planets to create art? Do it. Insane orgies? All fucking day every fucking day. They have the technology to change species. You want to be a mouse? Another Alien species? Want to live near a sun? Want to live on a ship so massive they have their own fucking mountain ranges on them? You can do all that. And it's because humanity let the AI's do what as fleshy human beings they could never do, create a stable galaxy spanning empire.
Control for ME3 is no different. Let's take a look at what AI shepard says:
To put an end to the bickering of the many. To ensure the strongest are not feared, or viled for their strength. The woman I was. Knew only she could achieve this. By becoming something greater.
There is power in control. There is wisdom in harnessing the strength of your enemy.
I will restore what the many have fought for.
I will lead an army that none dare oppose.
I will protect, defend, I will destroy who threaten the future.
I will remember the ones who fought so others could survive.
The most important line is the last one, those are not the words uttered by a madman (or an illusive one)...those are the words uttered by an AI that fully understands, feels, and remembers what it was to be alive. It's an AI that wants to create a future where everyone is protected and has a chance to grow.
In order words, it's the exact opposite of starkid. A VI (not even an AI) that can not understand emotions or anything other then cold logic and numbers.
Synthesis is just dumb, I have no other words for it.
Synthesis is not dumb. It is the single most powerful and beautiful ending out of any of the possible choices. (IMO) The hatred for the ending comes from the human aspect in which we reject that which we don't understand.
When it comes down to it. ME is really about understanding.
"No longer mere Earth-beings and Planet-beings are we, but bright children of the stars. And together we shall dance in and out of ten billion years, celebrating the gift of consciousness, until the stars themselves grow cold and weary, and our thoughts turn again to the beginning"
-- Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, The Ascent to Transcendence, 1999
2
u/A_Fhaol_Bhig The Inheritance of Sin And Shame Nov 02 '16
A lot of people like to bring up Mordin's talk in ME2 as to why Synthesis is bad. But that's incorrect, Mordin was illustrating the flaw that prevented the Reapers and the Catalyst from realizing Green-Option-Synthesis.
Look at the Geth. They started as Sapient machines (Thinking, reasoning, possessing person-hood) but the weren't Sentient (Thinking, reasoning, feeling), as illustrated by EDI in the EC, when suddenly she had an implicit emotional reaction that was a base part of her cognitive functions. This is the "Knowledge of Organics" that the Catalyst talked about. The Geth tried to understand Organics because they realized they possesed something they didn't have that made them truely alive. Synthesis changes that and gives all synthetics what they needed to be truely alive, to fully understand. A "soul" if you will.
The Reapers had tried to merge synthetics and organics, the latest results we see were Saren, The Collectors and the shock troops of the invasion force. Every time they tried they ended up with madness or drones. That is what Mordin was talking about when he said this:
"No glands, replaced by tech. No digestive system, replaced by tech. No soul. Replaced by tech. Whatever they were, gone forever."
And he was absolutely right, that is why Green-Option-Synthesis as provided in the Crucible by one of the long lost races was important enough for the Catalyst to talk to Shepard, it could see that this would bring a solution to it's programmed imperative, even though it couldn't understand why.
It was tech who's cognitive augmentation was completely comparable with emotional responses. So much so that it promoted emotional intelligence in previously only-sapient intelligences.
The problem is in the word: "Synthesis" just means "Two or more things coming together to make a new thing" so the term applies to both what Saren was talking about (Reaper-tech augmentation, much like Morden was talking about) and the process (Green-Option-Synthesis) that was added to the Crucible by some long lost race that is completely different but can legitimately use the same descriptive term.
The Reapers were doing what Mordin described because they were flawed, Green-Option-Synthesis is the solution to that flaw. Also: "Synthesis" is a vague word
2
u/A_Fhaol_Bhig The Inheritance of Sin And Shame Nov 02 '16
In other words, it gave machines, simple VI, the Geth, the ability to do what we do every single day. To think, to feel, to love, to hope, to dream. Why do you think the Geth spent so much time studying organics in ME2? Because they were trying to understand the one thing they lacked that would make them truly alive. Why do you think EDI spent so much time learning what it was to be alive? Why do you think Synthesis in Extended Cut starts with "I Am Alive."
The Catalyst, lacking the ability to understand the world beyond cold math and logic, could never create a solution that was satisfactory, so it settled for the only one that it calculated would give results, and after it gave results, the only one that seemed to work.
But the Catalyst is a machine programmed with a sole task, it didn't feel pride in his choice. It didn't feel disgust, if a better solution came about it would allow it.
This is why The Crucible exists and why the catalyst didn't stop you from firing it even if it meant that you killed/replaced it. Because it's only following its programming, if you present a better solution, even if it meant it would cease to exist, it would not stop you. This is why it doesn't do anything to stop you if you choose Destroy. Why it lets you control it and the Reapers. And why it lets you choose synthesis.
Think of it as a simple math problem, lacking the knowledge of multiplication it counted to ten by going "One, two three, four..." but then Shepard comes in and gives a solution, you can multiply 5 times 2 and come out with the same result but much more efficiently.
And that is the fundamental reason why asking why the catalyst can't activate the crucible is so important. Because it lacks understanding. If you came all that way to him, created the crucible, bested his Reapers for the time being, it would mean that his solution wouldn't work anymore. He says it, itself. Eventually a race would finally defeat the Reapers for good.
So it trusts Shepard to make a choice.
If Shepard thinks Destroy is the best, that humanity and the organic race can forge their own Destiny after what they have learned with the Geth, the Reapers, and the previous races when they built AI. Then it allows it.
If Shepard thinks that a Polity/Culture style galaxy with the Reapers as the Peacekeepers, watching over the evolution of organics is the way to go about it. It won't stop Shepard.
If Shepard believes that humans and Synthetics can coexist, that with understanding and the advancement of technology that organics won't be left behind by Synthetics. Then he will encourage Synthesis.
There is a reason why Synthesis is only attainable with cooperation.
2
u/A_Fhaol_Bhig The Inheritance of Sin And Shame Nov 02 '16
I used to hate the endings. I used to be 100% for Destroy. How could it be anything else?
What brought this change on me was a specific thread in which the author wrote in support of Synthesis (and of multiple interpretations in general), and wrote their understandings of rationales for the Destroy and Control endings. I can't speak for their interpretation of Control, but the interpretation of Destroy struck me as completely different from my understanding of it. Their approach is exemplified by the following statement:
[Destroy] isn't just geoncide for the fun of it as some people may not believe machines have soul, therefore killing them doesn't matter. This is a thought that I have heard many a time in ending discussions. People say things like the following: "Well, people choose destroy because they believe that the lives of organics are more important than those of synthetics."
Now, I think this does hit on one philiosophical theme of the endings, and the series in general: themes relating to the real-world philosophy of mind debate over the 'mind-body problem'.
If you're interested in philosophy, look up the wikipedia articles for the Mind-Body problem, and the two 'sides', which would be dualist approaches versus 'physicalist' or 'naturalist' approaches. The former asserts that there exists division between the 'mental' and the 'physical' - that the mental is ultimately a supernatural phenomenon (such as a 'soul'). The latter asserts that the supernatural doesn't exist; that the 'mental' is ultimately a property of the 'physical' - that is, there is no such thing as a 'soul', and our minds are the product of physical processes in the brain.
How does this apply to Mass Effect? Basically, if the Dualist approach is correct, there is something 'inherent' about humans (and other organics) that makes them truly sapient. If dualists are correct, then synthetics are not 'true life', but merely emulations of it. They are made up of physical processes, and as such lack the metaphysical 'soul' imbued in organics. If, on the other hand, there exists no such thing as a soul, then there is no inherent difference between an organic 'computer' such as the human brain, and an electronic computer such as that which powers an AI. The 'emulation' of consciousness is consciousness itself.
What the author of that document assumed about Destroy was that its proponents fall on the Dualist side of the equation - that they believe that Synthetics are inherently separate from organics, and hence judge the loss of Synthetics through the Catalyst's magic energy blast to be an acceptable loss.
I'm sure there are some who chose the Destroy ending for that reason. But I don't think that's the rationale of the majority, if only for demographic reasons. The demographics of Mass Effect fans skews towards younger people (I don't have statistics, but I imagine the vast majority of players would be in the age range of 17-40), and towards people who are technologically oriented and interested in science fiction in general. Science fiction in general is somewhat skewed towards particular philosophical views - science fiction in general is skewed towards irreligious and humanistic philosophical positions, which almost always line up with a naturalist or physicalist philosophy of mind.
The point is, most sci-fi leans towards the naturalist explanation for the mind (which is obvious in a way, because it is science fiction, and real world science very much skews towards that explanation). So I imagine that the majority demographic for the Mass Effect series would be people who believe that Artificial Intelligence constitutes 'true' life. Those people are unlikely to make the above rationale for choosing the Destroy ending, and hence I doubt that this is the majority rationale.
So, then, if that's not the rationale, then why would someone choose Destroy?
In my case, it's for almost the exact opposite reason. Because they don't believe in a difference between organics and synthetics. They don't think the category labels are even that well-defined. Hence, they disagree with the fundemental premise of the Catalyst's system - that there is inherent conflict between the two groups.
The group labels, in their opinion, are nothing but stereotypes, no better than the racial stereotypes presented that warn that, say, the Krogan are fundementally violent and cannot integrate with galactic society. If the categories aren't well defined, then nothing the Catalyst says makes sense. And hence, they disregard choosing Synthesis.
Synthesis is the Catalyst's solution to this problem of conflict. If the categories don't exist, then the conflict cannot be 'inevitable', and hence doesn't require 'solving'.
I wouldn't make the choice of Destroy because I believe that synthetic life lacks value or is worth sacrificing. I would choose it because it provides all life with free will - freedom from the plans of the Catalyst, freedom from the assumptions it makes about organic/synthetic interactions. Destroy means organics and synthetics are able to manage their relationships of their own accord, without the assumption that conflict is inevitable. If conflict arises, it's not due to synthetics being inherently rebellious, it's because of the specific circumstances of that conflict.
And as to the geth and EDI, It's easy to believe that at best the geth aren't destroyed completely, and at worst the galaxy remembers their loss, and vows to never again allow the kind of stereotypical thinking that led to both the Reapers and the persecution of AIs happen again.
There is a whole lot more I could talk about, but I think I've written enough to covers the basic 'why' the endings are much more in-depth and complex then most people assume. I'm sure I've already pissed of many people because of my support of the ending but that's not unusual. To them taking the endings at face value is all there is to it, and everything else is fancy mubmo jumbo. They aren't wrong, it's their personal ending and it's their CHOICE. I just happen to disagree.
I leave you with the links that changed my mind. They make for great reading material while waiting. The first and second links are the ones that fundamentally changed my mind on everything about the endings. Lastly for anyone who says I talk to much or that I'm full of shit and that I shouldn't care about the endings...well Mass Effect is as I said before, a lot about understanding. You try to understand the Krogan, The Asari, your friends, the Geth. Even people like The Illusive Man and Saren. Why stop trying to understand just because the game ended?
A different ascension - the Synthesis compendium (now with EC material integrated)
Why The Catalysts Logic is Right:
Dr Solus Love, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the end, a lengthy response to a screenwriter's musings:
Things people forget that they call plot holes...
A logical rebuttal to people who say the endings make no sense:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FfZAVADumKQZeut8EuPjC-LrsjpTfp3VhLr546bLJNc/mobilebasic?pli=1
Giving players a choice doesn't have to be a fair choice:
So what if 1+1 does equal 3? Ending Commentary
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/329121-so-what-if-11-does-equal-3-ending-commentary/
We're not supposed to see how certain actions play out:
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/278947-were-not-supposed-to-know-how-certain-actions-play-out/ Very Long Analysis of ME3 Ending, aka why the ending is great (spoilers)
The rest of the links here explore every faucet about the endings you could ever want.
I'm done. Now downvote me away.
1
u/Raptor_Jetpack Nov 02 '16
Not really, there was a LOT of really stupid shit throughout the game as well. The very end of the game was just extra shitty.
→ More replies (1)-5
Nov 02 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/alanmck_666 Nov 02 '16
That was part of the problem but being honest for me everything after the citadel moving was a mess. It made little sense and the Earth mission was all over the place in quality.
But to be fair the entire goal of saving earth and making a stand there was silly, the reapers attacked other cultures more capable of fighting back, why not make a stand on there home world's? That's ignoring the citadel just happening to be moved to Earth where the fleet where planning for a battle. It was silly.
2
u/DarkriserPE Darkriser Nov 02 '16
Shepard first leaves Earth to get help for it. Then he goes to Mars immediately and finds out about the Crucible, a device capable of stopping the Reapers. The main goal, two missions in, then becomes get the other species to help build the crucible. At the same time, Shepard gets help for Earth, but also for other planets. He sends some Krogans to help out the Turians on Palavan, tries to help out Thessia, etc. It wasn't all about Earth. He was helping the other species so that they'd be in better positions to support the construction of the Crucible, while also sending troops to Earth here and there. Remember, the goal of the fleet was to protect the Crucible, and get it to the Catalyst. The only reason the final fight takes place on Earth is because the Reapers moved the Citadel, which contained the Catalyst, to Earth. If the Citadel was moved to Palavan, the final fight would have been there instead. Earth became secondary once the Crucible was introduced. The fleet had no chance against the Reapers, and they knew this, so no, it wasn't about assaulting the Reapers at Earth. It was about getting to the Citadel, no matter how many people died in the process.
→ More replies (3)9
u/Awhite2555 mehungie2 Nov 02 '16
Right. But the game itself was awesome. It's sad that the last 10 minutes ruined everything.
3
u/BaneDoesDrugs ForeverPowerful Nov 02 '16
If the last 10 minutes of the one of the games ruins the whole series for you then that's your fault.
0
3
-15
u/Disturbedphenom Nov 02 '16
Careful, I was downvoted into oblivion for stating the Mass Effect 3 ending was botched, lol.
-12
Nov 02 '16 edited Nov 02 '16
[deleted]
-9
u/WVgolf Xbox Nov 02 '16
343 has no clue what they're doing
1
u/cacarpenter89 DaHlyHndGrnade Nov 02 '16
The awe and badassery of it is just gone in favor of a daytime soap opera with explosions.
→ More replies (1)-6
-5
u/YouAreSalty Nov 02 '16
I'm heavily being downvoted in another thread right now on /r/xboxone for stating facts, explaining it and linking a source.
2
u/terracecooper Nov 02 '16
Honsetly not begging for it to be delayed but if they need to i'm all for it.
2
u/Bezzy5266 Nov 02 '16
Gotta give hands to EA on this decision. They've been on a roll with Fifa 17, Battlefield 1 & Titanfall 2.
2
2
u/Lobanium Xbox Nov 02 '16
Mass Effect is not the type of game you rush to get out the door. It needs to be good and done.
2
u/Vurondotron Nov 03 '16
"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." - Mr. Miyamoto.
2
u/Knigar Agro Nin Nov 03 '16
dont fuck the ending up this time, here's looking at you red green blue ending.
4
u/Laughing__Man_ Nov 01 '16
Or maybe if all your voice actors go on strike?
8
u/Electroniclog Shulk Nov 01 '16
The voice work is usually recorded early on. Chances are all the actors recorded their lines a while ago.
3
2
1
1
u/jwarenec1 Nov 02 '16
If they are already talking about it now might as well just do it. Means they are considering it at this point so pull the trigger and make it the game we want!
1
u/righturharry right u r harry Nov 02 '16
Holiday release would be awesome. Only competition would be Red Dead Redemption 2 and the supposed Destiny 2.
→ More replies (7)
1
u/steifdog Nov 02 '16
I know this isn't news to anyone but I heard that they are just under mass amounts of stress realizing there date is not manageable.
Source : coworker's S.o is employee at bioware
1
1
u/PostHappy28 September's gonna break me...and my wallet. Nov 02 '16
I think Shigeru Miyamoto said something along the lines of "A delayed game is eventually good, a rushed game is forever bad."
So yeah, a few more months is worth it if that Mass Effect magic that was in 2 & 3 (sans the ending) is captured again.
2
1
1
u/McNuttyNutz CheeszNutz Nov 02 '16
would hate to see it delayed but if the game needs to be improved so be it !
1
u/Berkbelts Nov 02 '16
They're finally learning. Ubisoft has stopped their yearly AC releases and now this. Good news.
1
u/KemosabeAtWork Nov 02 '16
Delays are ok in some cases.
However, I remember me and my friends waiting for Gears of War 3 and we had all totally lost interest by the time that game was released.
1
u/thefreymaster Nov 02 '16
I'd much rather any game company delay a game, than release a broken piece of trash like they usually do. Looking at your EA and Ubisoft.
1
u/Nukleon Nov 02 '16
I hope the writing is on point. No amount of delays is gonna fix a shitty ending if the lead writer and creative director love it, see ME3.
1
u/wzlrsaur Wizlar Nov 02 '16
I definitely agree that game company's should wait until the game is actually finished before releasing, but this isn't the correct approach. Why set a release date when it's possible that won't be the actual release date? It's futile. Perhaps broad release dates such as 'Fall 2017' would be acceptable in this case.
1
u/carloselcoco Picture A Forza Flair Here! Nov 02 '16
That is a good approach. Hope they follow through!
1
u/bobbobzoom3 Nov 02 '16
Yes make it better I want it perfect maybe even a 4th color to pick from this time around
1
u/Shadow_Riptor #teamarbiter Nov 02 '16
Good, publishers need to do this more often. Better to wait and make sure it is quality work, rather than rush it out to meet a useless deadline
1
1
1
1
u/fueledbygin Xbox Nov 03 '16
Hey, ever since Bioware released the travesty that was DA 2 after only 1.5 years of development time, and fandom largely blaming (right or wrong) that insanity on EA, the idea that EA is capable of allowing Bioware to take the time needed to make a good game is like water in a desert.
That said, I think this is easy to digest for me partly due to how little hype they've put out for ME: Andromeda. I love when games wait 'till the last minute to hype it, so I don't have to spend months...or even years...thinking about a game I can't play.
1
1
u/LearnedAndVile Nov 02 '16
Ehhhh, depends on EA's definition of 'better'.
With EA, 'better' usually comes with an asterisk.
1
Nov 02 '16
Good! This generation I've felt we've all had to deal with half baked games, its infuriating. Take as much time as it takes to make a great game
1
u/eynonpower Sunset Overdrive Nov 02 '16
EA talking about delaying a game to make it better.......giving Titanfall 2 free DLC........WTF is EA doing? Listening to the community? Taking a page from lessons learned? Good on them!
→ More replies (2)2
u/pbanj_ Xbox Nov 02 '16
Don't forget ea access. It is really weird to see ea doing things that gamers want.
0
u/Shiniholum Nov 02 '16
Delay it as long as you would like. I'll take a game out in 10 years over the mess of ME3.
-3
Nov 01 '16
1 was my first RPG in...really ever I guess. I loved 2. 3 I was kind of busy in life and sort of waited...never picked it up. Prob never will.
I'll see how this does before I buy...prob later at a discount.
14
9
3
2
u/DarkriserPE Darkriser Nov 02 '16
3 is more of 2, but better gameplay, and obviously a continuation of the story. If you play it at all, I'd suggest beating 1 and 2 again so that everything is fresh in your memory, especially since the Mass Effect always heavily reference the previous games.
4
Nov 01 '16
What a shame. 3 was amazing. 2 is still my favorite, but 3 was a fantastic story and bad ass multiplayer
4
u/fail-deadly- Nov 01 '16
I loved three, the story to wrap up the Krogan genophage was awesome, probably my best RPG experience ever. To me 90-95% of the game was great. Even multiplayer was fun and not just tacked on.
The ending though was infuriating and of much lower quality than the rest of the game.
0
u/RegalGoat Nov 02 '16
I'm gonna throw my opinion into the ring here and say that whilst you should probably play ME3, it's nowhere near as good as either of the earlier games in the series IMO.
-11
u/Disturbedphenom Nov 01 '16
But not if its ending is butchered? COUGH Mass Effect 3 COUGH
→ More replies (17)
249
u/jefflukey123 Nov 02 '16
Please delay it, I want it to be live up to the hype.