Support NeoGAF

[Karl2177]

I don't think you can.

You cannot.

So it is impossible to have a ME3 playthrough with no surviving ME2 members? That's lame.

 

[Acheron]

So the ending sucks. But I think the most important thing is:

THE FUCKING FACE IMPORT "BUG" IS STILL NOT PATCHED.

I'm consistently amazed how under-reported it is that a key, franchise-defining feature was and still is completely broken, and it was knowingly hidden by developers. Additionally, the reason it doesn't work are mind numbingly simple.

Damn BioWare and damn the game "critics" for failing on this. I refuse to buy until it's fix and I refuse to buy it new because these scum suckers tried to grift me into paying full price for a defective product.

 

[DTKT]

So it is impossible to have a ME3 playthrough with no surviving ME2 members? That's lame.

That's silly. There is no point in allocating resources to create a playthrough without Shepard.

 

[Dany]

So it is impossible to have a ME3 playthrough with no surviving ME2 members? That's lame.

If all the squadmates die, then shepard dies.

 

[RedRedSuit]

So it is impossible to have a ME3 playthrough with no surviving ME2 members? That's lame.

lol

Look, I'll be the first to state that ME3 has a horrid ending and quite a few misfires, and that both ME2 and ME1 are far from perfect in various ways, but there IS such a thing as being a spoiled gamer.

Just the fact that many, many decisions carry over from the preceding games and actually manifest themselves in visible ways is a pretty cool and new thing that is at least very rare and is possibly unprecedented. It should be appreciated.

Complaining that you can't import an ME2 save in which you failed in the hardest possible way -- and that would be almost impossible to salvage while keeping Shepard a main character -- is ridiculous.

 

[RedRedSuit]

So the ending sucks. But I think the most important thing is:

THE FUCKING FACE IMPORT "BUG" IS STILL NOT PATCHED.

I'm consistently amazed how under-reported it is that a key, franchise-defining feature was and still is completely broken, and it was knowingly hidden by developers. Additionally, the reason it doesn't work are mind numbingly simple.

Damn BioWare and damn the game "critics" for failing on this. I refuse to buy until it's fix and I refuse to buy it new because these scum suckers tried to grift me into paying full price for a defective product.

Yeah. It's pretty bad. I got over it, but it's strange that they let it out the door, given that there is no way they didn't about this (unless they have the worst QA ever).

However, they did announce they're working on a patch for it (in fact it might be in certification, IIRC).

 

[MechaX]

But on that note, do we know what happens if Garrus, Tali, and Legion die (and I guess every other ME2 member except for like Jacob and Zaeed to give the minimum of allowing Shepard to survive the suicide mission with completely unimportant characters)?

 

[Karl2177]

lol

Look, I'll be the first to state that ME3 has a horrid ending and quite a few misfires, and that both ME2 and ME1 are far from perfect in various ways, but there IS such a thing as being a spoiled gamer.

Just the fact that many, many decisions carry over from the preceding games and actually manifest themselves in visible ways is a pretty cool and new thing that is at least very rare and is possibly unprecedented. It should be appreciated.

Complaining that you can't import an ME2 save in which you failed in the hardest possible way -- and that would be almost impossible to salvage while keeping Shepard a main character -- is ridiculous.

What? How did you derive that from my post?

If all the squadmates die, then shepard dies.

This is why I ask. If you have less than 2 squadmates alive at the end, it forces Shepard to die in ME2. A shame for 3, because I wanted to see how things would play out if Shepard had no allies whatsoever.

 

[EatChildren]

So it is impossible to have a ME3 playthrough with no surviving ME2 members? That's lame.

You can import any save where Shepard lives. If Shepard is dead, the trilogy is dead.

EDIT: I see where you clarified above. Just the way the game is designed *shrug*.

 

[Bowdz]

I understand Bioware has more pressing concerns right now (like determining what the hell they are going to do about the fan backlash), but it is crazy to see how slow they have responded to various bugs. Naughty Dog patched Uncharted 3 with complete control fix, motion blur, and a few other bug fixes in 3 weeks after launch with the bulk of the development of the fixes coming a few days after the game launched. Arnie was very vocal and responsive to NeoGAF and kept eveyone in the loop. I guess Bioware just likes speculation.

 

[RedRedSuit]

What? How did you derive that from my post?

This is why I ask. If you have less than 2 squadmates alive at the end, it forces Shepard to die in ME2. A shame for 3, because I wanted to see how things would play out if Shepard had no allies whatsoever.

My post logically led to the last statement of my post:

"Complaining that you can't import an ME2 save in which you failed in the hardest possible way -- and that would be almost impossible to salvage while keeping Shepard a main character -- is ridiculous."

This sentence directly addresses your complaint.

If I somehow misunderstood you, then my apologies.

 

[Dany]

I think you need at least 2 alive. The two that you bring to you to kill the human reaper, your survival is based if they're loyal or not.

 

[Divvy]

But on that note, do we know what happens if Garrus, Tali, and Legion die (and I guess every other ME2 member except for like Jacob and Zaeed to give the minimum of allowing Shepard to survive the suicide mission with completely unimportant characters)?

Not sure about Garrus or Tali, but if Legion dies, another Geth that has holographic n7 armor where Legion had his shows up with no explanation. Strangely, nobody mentions Legion at all even though it looks and acts exactly like Legion. This is what happens when you play ME3 without an ME2 save file.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

What? How did you derive that from my post?

This is why I ask. If you have less than 2 squadmates alive at the end, it forces Shepard to die in ME2. A shame for 3, because I wanted to see how things would play out if Shepard had no allies whatsoever.

By virtue of his dying on the collector base, that's how things would play out.

He dies and the Galaxy is doomed.

 

[Inferno313]

What? How did you derive that from my post?

This is why I ask. If you have less than 2 squadmates alive at the end, it forces Shepard to die in ME2. A shame for 3, because I wanted to see how things would play out if Shepard had no allies whatsoever.

Bioware made it clear in the freakin' loading screens of 2 that if everyone dies, then Shep dies, and that you wouldn't be able to import into the next game.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

I understand Bioware has more pressing concerns right now (like determining what the hell they are going to do about the fan backlash), but it is crazy to see how slow they have responded to various bugs. Naughty Dog patched Uncharted 3 with complete control fix, motion blur, and a few other bug fixes in 3 weeks after launch with the bulk of the development of the fixes coming a few days after the game launched. Arnie was very vocal and responsive to NeoGAF and kept eveyone in the loop. I guess Bioware just likes speculation.

Bioware honestly doesn't give a fuck about making the best product possible and making every effort to stay on top of things... just like DICE. As long as people buy millions of copies of their games despite the bitching and complaining, what incentive is there for them to change their ways? Zero.

The EApers harvested them, dawg.

 

[Karl2177]

My post logically led to the last statement of my post:

"Complaining that you can't import an ME2 save in which you failed in the hardest possible way -- and that would be almost impossible to salvage while keeping Shepard a main character -- is ridiculous."

This sentence directly addresses your complaint.

If I somehow misunderstood you, then my apologies.

Nope, my bad. I should have said if no squadmates survived, not just that Shepard dies. I assumed direct control that everyone knew what happens if you have less than 2 survive, but now I realize that not everyone had a super bleak playthrough of ME2 to get these outcomes. My bad.

 

[rififi]

But on that note, do we know what happens if Garrus, Tali, and Legion die (and I guess every other ME2 member except for like Jacob and Zaeed to give the minimum of allowing Shepard to survive the suicide mission with completely unimportant characters)?

Tali doesn't get replaced by a new character, instead you get the other two quarians (admirals?) accompany you on the Ranoch missions.
Garrus I don't think gets replacement either, but not sure what happens on Palaven.

 

[Psychoward]

Tali doesn't get replaced by a new character, instead you get the other two quarians (admirals?) accompany you on the Ranoch missions.
Garrus I don't think gets replacement either, but not sure what happens on Palaven.

They're not actually temporary squadmates though, they just talk over comms :/

 

[Black-Box]

But on that note, do we know what happens if Garrus, Tali, and Legion die (and I guess every other ME2 member except for like Jacob and Zaeed to give the minimum of allowing Shepard to survive the suicide mission with completely unimportant characters)?

nope, game must end, you can not replace Garrus OR Tali! EVER

By virtue of his dying on the collector base, that's how things would play out.

He dies and the Galaxy is doomed.

funny how in MS3 him dying is what saves the galaxy

 

[EatChildren]

Bioware honestly doesn't give a fuck about making the best product possible and making every effort to stay on top of things... just like DICE. As long as people buy millions of copies of their games despite the bitching and complaining, what incentive is there for them to change their ways? Zero.

The EApers harvested them, dawg.

I don't agree with this at all. I hate the compartmentalisation and generalisation of an entire company worth of people into a objective mould. That 'BioWare' is an entity that operates under a single directive.

BioWare is made up by people. People who make decisions, some moreso than others. Take the ending, for example. It is well known that both Walters and Hudson likely annexed themselves from the writing team to write the ending by themselves, locking themselves out from the usual team vetting every other writer received for every other plot arc. It was an unusual business practice for how BioWare's writers usually operate.

Thus, the shit horrible ending we got does not reflect the work and opinions of the entire BioWare entity, let alone all of the writers.

I do think many, many people at BioWare care very deeply about making the best possible product they can, and I think that when they don't they feel very bad. I think the problem is that in many cases these bad products and bad decisions are not a consequence of these people screwing up, but being unable to do otherwise. Because their leads decided to annex themselves from the team and do their own thing. Because marketing wanted to shoe horn in a bunch of useless shit and direct the project a certain way. And because the publisher overlords paying your wage set specific development, budget and time requirements you had no say over.

I feel putting an entire team of creative, passionate developers under a single umbrella is unfair, cruel and completely inaccurate. The people responsible for bad decisions and unjust management should be specifically targeted, not everybody.

 

[RedRedSuit]

I don't agree with this at all. I hate the compartmentalisation and generalisation of an entire company worth of people into a objective mould. That 'BioWare' is an entity that operates under a single directive.

BioWare is made up by people. People who make decisions, some moreso than others. Take the ending, for example. It is well known that both Walters and Hudson likely annexed themselves from the writing team to write the ending by themselves, locking themselves out from the usual team vetting every other writer received for every other plot arc. It was an unusual business practice for how BioWare's writers usually operate.

Thus, the shit horrible ending we got does not reflect the work and opinions of the entire BioWare entity, let alone all of the writers.

I do think many, many people at BioWare care very deeply about making the best possible product they can, and I think that when they don't they don't they feel very bad. I think the problem is that in many cases these bad products and bad decisions are not a consequence of these people screwing up, but being unable to do otherwise. Because their leads decided to annex themselves from the team and do their own thing. Because marketing wanted to shoe horn in a bunch of useless shit and direct the project a certain way. And because the publisher overlords paying your wage set specific development, budget and time requirements you had no say over.

I feel putting an entire team of creative, passionate developers under a single umbrella is unfair, cruel and completely inaccurate. The people responsible for bad decisions and unjust management should be specifically targeted, not everybody.

Agreed.

 

[Massa]

Bioware honestly doesn't give a fuck about making the best product possible

This is nonsense.

 

[BigTnaples]

funny how in MS3 him dying is what saves the galaxy

Shepard lives.













(in my playthough)

 

[Bowdz]

I don't agree with this at all. I hate the compartmentalisation and generalisation of an entire company worth of people into a objective mould. That 'BioWare' is an entity that operates under a single directive.

BioWare is made up by people. People who make decisions, some moreso than others. Take the ending, for example. It is well known that both Walters and Hudson likely annexed themselves from the writing team to write the ending by themselves, locking themselves out from the usual team vetting every other writer received for every other plot arc. It was an unusual business practice for how BioWare's writers usually operate.

Thus, the shit horrible ending we got does not reflect the work and opinions of the entire BioWare entity, let alone all of the writers.

I do think many, many people at BioWare care very deeply about making the best possible product they can, and I think that when they don't they don't they feel very bad. I think the problem is that in many cases these bad products and bad decisions are not a consequence of these people screwing up, but being unable to do otherwise. Because their leads decided to annex themselves from the team and do their own thing. Because marketing wanted to shoe horn in a bunch of useless shit and direct the project a certain way. And because the publisher overlords paying your wage set specific development, budget and time requirements you had no say over.

I feel putting an entire team of creative, passionate developers under a single umbrella is unfair, cruel and completely inaccurate. The people responsible for bad decisions and unjust management should be specifically targeted, not everybody.

Well put.

 

[Metroidvania]

I understand Bioware has more pressing concerns right now (like determining what the hell they are going to do about the fan backlash), but it is crazy to see how slow they have responded to various bugs. Naughty Dog patched Uncharted 3 with complete control fix, motion blur, and a few other bug fixes in 3 weeks after launch with the bulk of the development of the fixes coming a few days after the game launched. Arnie was very vocal and responsive to NeoGAF and kept eveyone in the loop. I guess Bioware just likes speculation.

The weird thing is that I know Bioware has at least one or two people with GAF acounts, but I've never seen them or the CMs post anywhere except a few AMAs on Reddit, or a few times in the DA or early ME2 threads here

I may not be looking in the right spots, but shouldn't the CMs be in more places than just the BSN/Twitter with random pop ins on other large gaming communities?

I've only seen them post about stuff like Multiplayer issues and the Face import bug pretty infrequently on the BSN or Twitter.

(Admittedly, like I said above, I'm not sure if they frequent other places, so feel free to correct me.)

Whatever the case, I hope the team at large sheds at least some light on this whole fiasco when everything is said and done.

 

[Karl2177]

It is well known that both Walters and Hudson likely annexed themselves from the writing team to write the ending by themselves, locking themselves out from the usual team vetting every other writer received for every other plot arc.

And I will continue to mock the poor writings of Walters, the pre-release lies of Hudson, and the lots of speculation from them both.

 

[hateradio]

The weird thing is that I know Bioware has at least one or two people with GAF acounts, but I've never seen them or the CMs post anywhere except a few AMAs on Reddit, or once or a few times in the DA or early ME2 threads.

. . .

Whatever the case, I hope the team at large sheds at least some light on this whole fiasco when everything is said and done.

Maybe The Shit Mount thread scared them away from GAF.

I'm sure they'll say something at PAX while they talk about their perfect scores.

 

[DTKT]

The weird thing is that I know Bioware has at least one or two people with GAF acounts, but I've never seen them or the CMs post anywhere except a few AMAs on Reddit, or once or a few times in the DA or early ME2 threads.

I may not be looking in the right spots, but shouldn't the CMs be in more places than just the BSN/Twitter with random pop ins on other large gaming communities?

I've only seen them post about stuff like Multiplayer issues and the Face import bug pretty infrequently on the BSN or Twitter.

(Admittedly, like I said above, I'm not sure if they frequent other places, so feel free to correct me.)

Whatever the case, I hope the team at large sheds at least some light on this whole fiasco when everything is said and done.

For now, without announcing something, it's not worth interacting with anyone. It's too early for some kind of "mea culpa" like they did with DAII and that was almost 1 year after the release. They have nothing solid to present and are probably still figuring it what they are going to do.

They might come out of with completely unrelated piece of DLC.

We'll know more after the conference at PAX. If nothing is announced there, then it's same to say that Bioware just saw it fit to do nothing about the ending.

 

[EatChildren]

And I will continue to mock the poor writings of Walters, the pre-release lies of Hudson, and the lots of speculation from them both.

And they deserve it. Walters wrote an awful ending. Awful for a multitude of reasons, each an accurate dissection and analysis of its failure. Definitively bad, on basically every single narrative and mechanical front.

BioWare's producers and marketing deserve shit for telling blatant lies, and allowing the project to be released in the state we got.

They deserve the heat because it was their fuck up.

Maybe The Shit Mount thread scared them away from GAF.

I'm sure they'll say something at PAX while they talk about their perfect scores.

I'm...confident they'll say quite a bit at PAX. I'm not sure if I'm maybe blinded by, I dunno, something, but I think the ending situation will be the main topic of conversation and explored in depth.

I think this because the situation really has blown out to extreme proportions. I mean, we can argue day and night about entitlement, rage, justification, whether people are taking it too seriously, bla bla bla...but here it is. It's everywhere. It's press, and not good press. There's nothing good coming out of it. Just lots and lots of bad word of mouth.

EA can't be happy with it at all. It does not reflect the product they want to see. BioWare cant be happy about it because EA isn't happy about it.

It might all boil down to a load of bullshit excuses and crappy resolution, but I don't think BioWare/EA will sweep it under the rug, because I don't think they can afford to from a PR/marketing perspective.

 

[hateradio]

^ They swept DAII under the rug well enough.

They might come out of with completely unrelated piece of DLC.

I'm pretty sure they'll just talk about MP and SP DLC. Maybe they'll mention their initiative, but who knows.

 

[Zerokku]

^ They swept DAII under the rug well enough.

We'll see how well when we see DAIII's sales numbers. I think they'll be a noticeable bit lower.

 

[Psychoward]

We'll see how well when we see DAIII's sales numbers. I think they'll be a noticeable bit lower.

DA2's were already a lot lower than Origins, I hope they seriously learned from it.

 

[HK-47]

DA2's were already a lot lower than Origins, I hope they seriously learned from it.

I seriously doubt they will

 

[EatChildren]

^ They swept DAII under the rug well enough.

Right, but was DAII's shit storm really as big as this? Was it a huge controversy and debate plastered over every single major website? Is it the topic of conversation among the industry pr, to the point of being the source of jokes among some non-BioWare developers (see: April Fools)? Did the forums absolutely explode with the fan reaction that we're seeing (cupcakes, charity, etc)?

DAII had a shit storm, and though I could be wrong, I don't think it came close to what we're seeing now.

 

[Digoman]

^ They swept DAII under the rug well enough.

That they did. But to be fair "correcting" the criticisms of DA2 would require a whole new game.

While we don't have hard data, the recent cancellation of the expansion suggests that the Dragon Age debacle really hurt the brand, and this Mass Effect backlash is way, way bigger.

 

[Psychoward]

I seriously doubt they will

Yeah, same. I've pretty much written off BioWare entirely, but I wouldn't mind a nice surprise.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

^ They swept DAII under the rug well enough.

Trying to compare the backlash between DA2 and ME3 is ridiculous. Sure, people were pissed about DA2, but nothing on the level of ME3.

DA2 backlash = "you made a shit game and I'm mad!"
ME3 backlash = "we're so mad that we're going to cause such a fucking scene that you actually address it and change your fucking released, finished game."

 

[HadesGigas]

That they did. But to be fair "correcting" the criticisms of DA2 would require a whole new game.

While we don't have hard data, the recent cancellation of the expansion suggests that the Dragon Age debacle really hurt the brand, and this Mass Effect backlash is way, way bigger.

I'm not sure that this Mass Effect backlash is "bigger" exactly, just very different. DAII was widely called shit. It didn't have journalists calling the fans babies for thinking it's shit. So it didn't get coverage in mainstream media since the story was just "company makes bad video game everyone agrees is bad", but it still was horribly damaging.

 

[HK-47]

That they did. But to be fair "correcting" the criticisms of DA2 would require a whole new game.

While we don't have hard data, the recent cancellation of the expansion suggests that the Dragon Age debacle really hurt the brand, and this Mass Effect backlash is way, way bigger.

To be fair, correcting the stupidity in ME3 would really take a whole new game. The entire ending, the intro, any talk about the crucible, anything regarding the Citadel magically being taken over and moved. I mean its not as omnipresent as the problems with DAII which ran into the gameplay but its hard to also have the entire beginning and end be shit and have several really dumb plot points running through the whole game.

 

[HK-47]

I'm not sure that this Mass Effect backlash is "bigger" exactly, just very different. DAII was widely called shit. It didn't have journalists calling the fans babies for thinking it's shit. So it didn't get coverage in mainstream media since the story was just "company makes bad video game everyone agrees is bad", but it still was horribly damaging.

Except for PC gamer and escapist magazine. May they forever be flamed for it.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

I seriously doubt they will

Dragon Age 3 will have guns.

And wingsuits. :/

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

So it is impossible to have a ME3 playthrough with no surviving ME2 members? That's lame.

I think you can use the save editor to have them all killed off.

 

[Digoman]

I'm not sure that this Mass Effect backlash is "bigger" exactly, just very different. DAII was widely called shit. It didn't have journalists calling the fans babies for thinking it's shit. So it didn't get coverage in mainstream media since the story was just "company makes bad video game everyone agrees is bad", but it still was horribly damaging.

Fair enough. It's kind of hard to compare because even the reactions in the forums were different (from what I can tell), there is way more ... "hate" in this ME3 scenario. DA2 appear to more disgust... don't know if that makes sense.

But still think there is a difference in scale. The whole DA2 didn't force Bioware to "promise" some "content initiative", or the gaming press to respond in general.

To be fair, correcting the stupidity in ME3 would really take a whole new game. The entire ending, the intro, any talk about the crucible, anything regarding the Citadel magically being taken over and moved. I mean its not as omnipresent as the problems with DAII which ran into the gameplay but its hard to also have the entire beginning and end be shit and have several really dumb plot points running through the whole game.

Speaking about the ending only... I think is so far disconnected with the game that you can probably remove/rewrite it without great consequence. And sure, a lot of the other stupid plot holes would be a bigger issue if it wasn't for the ending controversy, but they alone wouldn't have caused such big shitstorm.

Not that it matter... I still can't see Bioware admiting the were wrong in either of these screw ups.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

I don't agree with this at all. I hate the compartmentalisation and generalisation of an entire company worth of people into a objective mould. That 'BioWare' is an entity that operates under a single directive.

BioWare is made up by people. People who make decisions, some moreso than others. Take the ending, for example. It is well known that both Walters and Hudson likely annexed themselves from the writing team to write the ending by themselves, locking themselves out from the usual team vetting every other writer received for every other plot arc. It was an unusual business practice for how BioWare's writers usually operate.

Thus, the shit horrible ending we got does not reflect the work and opinions of the entire BioWare entity, let alone all of the writers.

I do think many, many people at BioWare care very deeply about making the best possible product they can, and I think that when they don't they feel very bad. I think the problem is that in many cases these bad products and bad decisions are not a consequence of these people screwing up, but being unable to do otherwise. Because their leads decided to annex themselves from the team and do their own thing. Because marketing wanted to shoe horn in a bunch of useless shit and direct the project a certain way. And because the publisher overlords paying your wage set specific development, budget and time requirements you had no say over.

I feel putting an entire team of creative, passionate developers under a single umbrella is unfair, cruel and completely inaccurate. The people responsible for bad decisions and unjust management should be specifically targeted, not everybody.

What Bioware does is taken as a whole. It doesn't matter if it's the poor choices of a few marketing jackasses or higher-up people at EA/Bioware, it affects the image of the company as a whole. And as a whole, Bioware has gone from my absolute favorite RPG developer that makes the highest quality, most enjoyable RPG's to a pale shadow of their former selves. They seem to have made a formula for how their games must be made, and anything else that may or may not add to the quality and 'depth', so to speak, is pruned out.

Bioware has more resources, hype, and fanpower than they've ever had before, yet their products do not reflect that. They have so much potential, and yet it all seems sadly squandered. Dragon Age 2 as a product and Mass Effect 3's ending both seem to signify the quality of their games going from 'setting the standard' to 'just get it done. I know there's still talented people at Bioware who pour love into what they make, but it can be hard to see when you try to see the whole picture of where their games have gone. I liked Mass Effect 3, but I feel like it deserved more: more development time, more content, more polish, more love, more everything.

And I think it is idealistic to believe that someone those responsible for these poor choices will be outed and revealed. How can you specifically target them when you don't truly know who made the crappy decisions? I am not buying games from specific individuals, I am buying games from an entire company. It is normal to blame a COMPANY for the quality of the products they sell, because it truly is an entity of people, and if innocent, good people get blamed for the company's mistakes, then that's just how it goes. They work for that company, they are part of a whole.

 

[Karl2177]

I think you can use the save editor to have them all killed off.

Unless there is a 360 one out, I can't do this. If only Origin didn't exist, I would have this for PC as well...

*shakes fist*

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

Unless there is a 360 one out, I can't do this. If only Origin didn't exist, I would have this for PC as well...

*shakes fist*

you can use it on the 360 save too

 

[EatChildren]

What Bioware does is taken as a whole. It doesn't matter if it's the poor choices of a few marketing jackasses or higher-up people at EA/Bioware, it affects the image of the company as a whole. And as a whole, Bioware has gone from my absolute favorite RPG developer that makes the highest quality, most enjoyable RPG's to a pale shadow of their former selves. They seem to have made a formula for how their games must be made, and anything else that may or may not add to the quality and 'depth', so to speak, is pruned out.

Bioware has more resources, hype, and fanpower than they've ever had before, yet their products do not reflect that. They have so much potential, and yet it all seems sadly squandered. Dragon Age 2 as a product and Mass Effect 3's ending both seem to signify the quality of their games going from 'setting the standard' to 'just get it done' to be a choice of whoever is leading the company along the path they're going now.

I know there's still talented people at Bioware who pour love into what they make, but it can be hard to see when you try to see the whole picture of where their games have gone. I liked Mass Effect 3, but I feel like it deserved more: more development time, more content, more polish, more love, more everything.

Man, I'm not talking about the image as a whole or a company projected image. I'm talking about statements like "Bioware honestly doesn't give a fuck about making the best product possible", and how poorly and inaccurately they explain the apparent problems.

This post of yours already does a better job of detailing why you feel the way you do and where the problems lie.

It is normal to blame a COMPANY for the quality of the products they sell, because it truly is an entity of people, and if innocent, good people get blamed for the company's mistakes, then that's just how it goes. They work for that company, they are part of a whole.

And this is binary, boring thinking that holds no weight in an interesting, analytical discussion of the rights and wrongs of a business, a business made up of people, people making creative and executive decisions, these decisions the cause of your opinions in the first place.

And honestly? I think it's dumb, and a cheap cop out, because it holds nobody, the individuals responsible for mistakes, responsible for their mistakes. It's umbrella of blame that solves nothing.

 

[Bisnic]

On my 2nd run right now, since Garrus was the LI of my femshep on my 1st run, i had no idea him and Tali would end up hugging(kissing?) each other in the main battery room right before the Earth mission. Was surprised, and so were they.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Also: DA2 was "just get it done". They had an insanely short timeline to deal with. Plus, in the context of a year-long dev time, it was pretty solid. But why they chose to up the graphics in that timeline, I'll never know.