Jessica Chobot, she works for IGN and they kind of shoehorned a character based on her into ME3. It was needless and clumsy. I played through ME3 twice and both times I told the character to go away.
Thing is, most people who did like it had to put a lot of thought into why they liked it, no? It wasn't something easily accessible to Western storytelling. There are a lot more people who hated the ending than liked it. Everyone I know who went through Mass Effect 3 without reading internet spoilers first all loathed the ending. Most everyone I know who did like it were prepared somewhat to be disappointed. Funny how expectations and narrative-framing can change people's opinions.
Literary faux pas are considered as such because of years and years and years of culture and study informing us it's not an ideal way to piece together a story. I feel like if you're writing dialogue for a game, and part of the selling point is plot and storycrafting and the like, you'd have at least one guy on staff who went to school for an English degree, who could have spoke up and said, "You know, this is probably a bad idea."
I liked the ending just fine the first time around, the stuff that mattered anyway (the ominous paths to the different endings was pretty silly). The sheer amount of hatred that came out after the ending is baffling, and I feel that most people who didn't like it were either:
1. Looking at an incomplete picture, the games have always been built with the assumption that the player has played the previous installments. When people make the argument
that the catalyst's plan was to kill organics with synthetics to prevent synthetics killing organics, I can't help but assume they have never played the original Mass Effect. That argument is straight up wrong, the reapers are meant to prune the most advanced species to prevent a scenario where synthetic life or organic life wipes each other out. When the reapers are finished they leave proper infrastructure, the mass relays so the new organic life will advance to their convenience and make the process much faster. This is wasn't new, Sovereign laid out the entire thing on Virmire.
2. There were outside variables affecting how the game was viewed. A lot of fans were upset with the day one dlc for Mass Effect, and many more still had issues with Bioware being a part of EA. There was a lot of hate going around before the release, Metacritic spent the launch day getting rid of user reviews that gave it automatic zeros.
I think the problem is that they were telling a story over five years, with not everyone joining the story at the same time, the ending draws on elements from all the games, not just ME3, and that can lead to confusion if not everyone is up to date on their ME narrative.
@State_Lemming Where did she appear in ME3 and what was she called? I have to confess that I did not notice her but I only played through once - apart from trying out the enhanced ending which really did not improve things that much.
I forget what her name is in-game. Her character is at the Citadel docking bay, and she is some news anchor that wants to cover life on the Normandy.
I don't know anything about Chobot professionally, but when I was playing through ME3 the first time, her character is dressed in some tiny dress and the camera made an effort to get her cleavage in every shot, Miranda's ass style. I didn't like the idea that Bioware assumed I needed boobs to enjoy the game so I never bothered letting her on the ship.
I've played the entire series, and there was no assumption on my part with regards to that specific thing. That's what it straight up tells you. In fact, up to that point it was just an evil omnipresent alien force that...
prunes life, as it were. We all understood that. What changed is now we're being told this god-like Catalyst created them. That was the new thing. That changes the whole dynamic. And it was incredibly stupid and detrimental to the overall tone of the entire series.
The people I know who were most torqued were those who stuck through it over the whole 5 years. The debacle it caused might be a little blown out of proportion, but as someone who could not have been more excited about the game and intentionally avoided the entire internet for a week before and after it came out.
First thing I did after I beat it was google to see if there was as much outrage over the ending as I felt. I felt pretty validated. It is in my estimation literally the worst ending to anything I have ever seen, heard, read, played, whatever.
I will definitely not preorder it. May buy it after is released after reading opinions / impressions from people who played it if general consensus is that it's a good game.
@Arveragus: The in-game character based on Chobot is called Diana Allers. She's dressed ridiculously and apparently you can sex her up if you wish. Thing is, Chobot works for the gaming review site IGN, so for many people it felt as if Bioware/EA and IGN had made a pact for a high review score in exchange for letting Chobot model for a character in the game. Also, there was something concerning a certain Emily Wong too...Alas, it created a huge outrage right after ME 3 was released. Not to mention that Chobot has pictures of her licking a console controller spread all over the internet.
I never banged Allers. Believe me, I tried. Stuck up bitch. Kinda silly since you could bang Kelly Chambers in ME2 but I guess diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.
Probably not representative of the person on whom she was modeled, but she was a war asset, so I let her on the ship. Plus, it was funny to walk into her quarters every so often and see what nonsense she was spewing to her tabloid news service.
P.S. I appreciate Bioware including the boobs. I like boobs.
Imma gonna be blunt: I don't like the heavy focus on relationships in the latest Bioware games. I'd rather just want to be able to find out more about a certain character without having to hit him/her up.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud: Out of curiosity I have now looked up Chobot on the internet. I can see the physical similarity with the created character. From recollection Diana Allers was mildly irritating and I could not see what her value was as a 'war asset'. I did let her on the ship on the basis that one had to colect as may points as possible for the grand finale. And that is an entirely different story which could take a while .. and regularly does on other forums!
Also, a multiplayer component should NEVER have any impact on the single player component...ME 3 did this and a lot of people were annoyed because of it. I can understand how the devs wanted to attract some attention to the multiplayer in ME 3, as it was a new feature, but I think they did so in the wrong way.
Totally, it is a good multiplayer system (apparently Bioware always wanted to have one since the first game), but the galactic readiness was just stupid. On the other hand war assets were a mess in the first place.
Now that we are talking about this I can't help but wonder if there is a plan for a Dragon Age mmo if SWTOR ends up dying.
I agree. The multiplayer option in ME3 can be quite entertaining though it gets a bit monotonous after a while but forcing the single player into that route to boost 'galactic readiness' leading to a different single player ending was unacceptable. As for a Dragon Age mmo I don't even want think about that possibility. The developers should just concentrate on not making a hash of DA3. On a more cheerful note, we are now in October and it is only 2 months before the projected release of BG 1 EE!
I agree. The multiplayer option in ME3 can be quite entertaining though it gets a bit monotonous after a while but forcing the single player into that route to boost 'galactic readiness' leading to a different single player ending was unacceptable. As for a Dragon Age mmo I don't even want think about that possibility. The developers should just concentrate on not making a hash of DA3. On a more cheerful note, we are now in October and it is only 2 months before the projected release of BG 1 EE!
True that. I'm pretty certain that it's EA that forces their developers to insert multiplayer in to everything, though. Because they are under impression that games need multiplayer to make a profit.
@Arkynomicon: EA actually publically stated that multiplayer is a must in most if not all of their games. I read it in an article sometime ago, don't remember where, though.
@scriver: Yup, I think it was that article. Personally I don't see any need for multiplayer modes and online profiles, because I usually play games to be on my own and for my own personal enjoyment. I just hope they don't start pulling any 'you must have X amount of friends to unlock this feature' or ' you must have X 'likes' on your profile to be able to get access to this or that'. If I want to hang out with friends, I do so in real life.
@Arkynomicon Or my other personal favourite is that you must buy another game (in which you have no interest) in order to acquire some special add on to the game which you have purchased. That really is marketing gone mad.
The concept that "everything must have multiplayer!" is a short-sighted notion, I think. I think it helps games that are already going to be moderately successful, but really hurts new, start up titles.
If the franchise is already established, it creates the group mentality effect. That is to say, if one friend gets it, he gets all his other friends to pick up the game to play it with them. That's why so many big titles sell like they do.
On the other hand, start-up titles where the focus is on multiplayer always fall apart. Too often you get a game that's great but because the focus is multiplayer and it's a relative unknown, recruiting more people to play it fails. "Wanderlust" is a good example. I loved the game. But it just didn't attract big numbers, so there is not a large player base, making finding groups to get anything done more of a chore than it needs to be for a game that just doesn't hold up when you're playing alone.
I think another reason EA is so big into multiplayer is if the multiplayer is attractive, it cuts down on piracy. Everyone ends up needing their own copy to get the "full" experience.
I can understand the philosphy from a sales perspective, but I think if you don't get to the underlying desires of players in specific genres, it's ultimately short-sighted.
DA2 was far from perfect, but I enjoyed it. Anders's retcon was annoying, yes the dungeon(s) got repetitive, and I got real sick of the templars and the Chantry real fast. However, I still enjoyed the game. I love Varric, and Isabela cracks me up. I don't understand all the hate for her. I don't find her cliche at all. I thought the friendship/rivalry dynamic was interesting, though I wish they were two separate sliders. I honestly don't know if I'll pre-order the game. I haven't decided yet. I'm not wild about working for the Chantry, but it would be nice to see some of the choices made in previous games influence how DA3 unfolds. Oh, and if Varric was supposed to have written the end credits song "I'm Not Calling You a Liar," he would have made it a helluva lot more catchy than it was. It would have been a drinking song you can belt out with the rest of the alcoholics at The Hanged Man.
@jhart1018 Yeah, I liked the game too despite some glaring flaws. Biggest problem for me was that the proper climax of the game felt like it came with the Qunari incident. After that the air just kinda goes out of the game. The final act felt very cobbled together and rushed.
It was fun enough for me but in hindsight I wish I wouldn't had bought it at a full price.
@jhart1018 On balance I enjoyed DA2 and I agree that Varric and Isabela were entertaining. The only problem was that I preferred Dragon Age Origins as it had a far more epic feel to it and greater depth of characters. In contrast DA2 seemed to be a lot more combat orientated and there was the ongoing issue of repetition of generic areas. In summary I suppose that I am hoping that DA3 has a bit more depth than its predecessor, that it has a more open feel but retains the humour and fun present in DA2.
This might be petty, but the reason I could never deal with Isabela was that her clothes are absurd. Sex appeal is fine, especially for a character like Isabela, but I draw the line when I am suppose to believe she can fight in "armor" like that.
Playing through Awakening for the first time, so far Anders seems pretty similar to his DA2 self, but maybe the retcon refers to something later in the game?
I will acquire Dragon Age 3 through relations, but I am not willing to pay a cent for it before testing it. I enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins, but they ruined the whole series for me with both the horrible Awakening DLC and the Dragon Age 2 game. All what was good in Dragon Age: Origins was ripped away in Dragon Age 2, and I fear that Dragon Age 3 will be far worse.
Why do I fear that it will be worse? According to my understanding, Dragon Age 2 sold much better on every platform except PC than Dragon Age: Origins. Thus netting them more Coins. More Coins = Make a new game with the previous strategy and add in things to draw more players. The folk who enjoyed certain aspects of Dragon Age: Origins can easily be exchanged for the new audience, all for Profit.
Someone, please make a poll! How many DLCs will be out for Sale on Launch Day? 1? 3? 6?
Comments
1. Looking at an incomplete picture, the games have always been built with the assumption that the player has played the previous installments. When people make the argument
2. There were outside variables affecting how the game was viewed. A lot of fans were upset with the day one dlc for Mass Effect, and many more still had issues with Bioware being a part of EA. There was a lot of hate going around before the release, Metacritic spent the launch day getting rid of user reviews that gave it automatic zeros.
I think the problem is that they were telling a story over five years, with not everyone joining the story at the same time, the ending draws on elements from all the games, not just ME3, and that can lead to confusion if not everyone is up to date on their ME narrative.
I forget what her name is in-game. Her character is at the Citadel docking bay, and she is some news anchor that wants to cover life on the Normandy.
I don't know anything about Chobot professionally, but when I was playing through ME3 the first time, her character is dressed in some tiny dress and the camera made an effort to get her cleavage in every shot, Miranda's ass style. I didn't like the idea that Bioware assumed I needed boobs to enjoy the game so I never bothered letting her on the ship.
The people I know who were most torqued were those who stuck through it over the whole 5 years. The debacle it caused might be a little blown out of proportion, but as someone who could not have been more excited about the game and intentionally avoided the entire internet for a week before and after it came out.
First thing I did after I beat it was google to see if there was as much outrage over the ending as I felt. I felt pretty validated. It is in my estimation literally the worst ending to anything I have ever seen, heard, read, played, whatever.
Probably not representative of the person on whom she was modeled, but she was a war asset, so I let her on the ship. Plus, it was funny to walk into her quarters every so often and see what nonsense she was spewing to her tabloid news service.
P.S. I appreciate Bioware including the boobs. I like boobs.
Now that we are talking about this I can't help but wonder if there is a plan for a Dragon Age mmo if SWTOR ends up dying.
True that. I'm pretty certain that it's EA that forces their developers to insert multiplayer in to everything, though. Because they are under impression that games need multiplayer to make a profit.
@scriver
Yeah, that's where I read it. Not sure why they feel the need to brag about it, though?
Or that you will require to link your facebook account to unlock a partymember/area.
Or my other personal favourite is that you must buy another game (in which you have no interest) in order to acquire some special add on to the game which you have purchased. That really is marketing gone mad.
If the franchise is already established, it creates the group mentality effect. That is to say, if one friend gets it, he gets all his other friends to pick up the game to play it with them. That's why so many big titles sell like they do.
On the other hand, start-up titles where the focus is on multiplayer always fall apart. Too often you get a game that's great but because the focus is multiplayer and it's a relative unknown, recruiting more people to play it fails. "Wanderlust" is a good example. I loved the game. But it just didn't attract big numbers, so there is not a large player base, making finding groups to get anything done more of a chore than it needs to be for a game that just doesn't hold up when you're playing alone.
I think another reason EA is so big into multiplayer is if the multiplayer is attractive, it cuts down on piracy. Everyone ends up needing their own copy to get the "full" experience.
I can understand the philosphy from a sales perspective, but I think if you don't get to the underlying desires of players in specific genres, it's ultimately short-sighted.
Yeah, I liked the game too despite some glaring flaws. Biggest problem for me was that the proper climax of the game felt like it came with the Qunari incident. After that the air just kinda goes out of the game. The final act felt very cobbled together and rushed.
It was fun enough for me but in hindsight I wish I wouldn't had bought it at a full price.
On balance I enjoyed DA2 and I agree that Varric and Isabela were entertaining. The only problem was that I preferred Dragon Age Origins as it had a far more epic feel to it and greater depth of characters. In contrast DA2 seemed to be a lot more combat orientated and there was the ongoing issue of repetition of generic areas. In summary I suppose that I am hoping that DA3 has a bit more depth than its predecessor, that it has a more open feel but retains the humour and fun present in DA2.
Playing through Awakening for the first time, so far Anders seems pretty similar to his DA2 self, but maybe the retcon refers to something later in the game?
Yeah, Isabela is obviously pulp eye-candy to get teenagers to buy the game.
Anders wasn't much of a brooding character in Awakening. I guess shit got to real when they took his cat away.
Why do I fear that it will be worse? According to my understanding, Dragon Age 2 sold much better on every platform except PC than Dragon Age: Origins. Thus netting them more Coins. More Coins = Make a new game with the previous strategy and add in things to draw more players. The folk who enjoyed certain aspects of Dragon Age: Origins can easily be exchanged for the new audience, all for Profit.
Someone, please make a poll! How many DLCs will be out for Sale on Launch Day? 1? 3? 6?