I can tell you why people hate it; because they removed important content from the game for preorder incentives. Because EA laid off many of the developers on this beloved franchise, and because it's pointlessly withheld from steam.
Y'know, if this was an argument of 'freedom' within Mass Effect games then I have to ask, are they going to include the option to romance a character who is deeply religious? If ME is supposed to be some subtle depiction of society, then why is it that the only religious mentions are mild quibs that are off somewhere else, or Ashley saying she believes in god for one line? Thane doesn't count btw, his culture has no pretext with western civilization.
@liam72 that is the pressure point. Bioware must have quite a large staff to make a game of this proportion. With all the animators, design, voice actors and resources it takes to make the universe of Mass Effect, I don't think any one decision within it could be made without the consent of higher ups. That, and the fact that so many hands on it means the costs to make it are phenomenal. Especially when its something like this, something that can (does) stir a lot of unrest and cause many people to get irate, I don't think it was an artist that made the call. I mean, no one's seen the 'scene', but I'd imagine that if it were like ME2 or DA2, then it is probably going to be a bunch of dialogue trees strung into an off camera scene, not some statement about society.
@liam72 Normally I'd agree with you, but again, this is EA. They're the ones who told Bioware that they had to make more DLC to sell or people would start getting laid off. EA's really trying to sell ME3 to as many people as possible before the franchise gets overused. In the same way George Lucas put Samuel Jackson in Star Wars to appeal to the 'urban market', EA put homosexuality in ME3 to appeal to the 'progressive market'. You have to remember, they made Bioware release Dragon Age 2 for no legitimate reason (it had no real plot to speak of), so I do have my reservations that this isn't a political , social or artistic scheme, but merely a financial one.
I think the excessive traffic this page is getting proves my point that controversy sells. It begs repeating that no matter where you stand on homosexuality, EA doesn't care. This is publisher that has burned so many PR bridges that other publishers take pointers from it. They're adding homosexuality because, like the nudity of ME1, it will sell more copies. Go ahead and say this is progressive all you want, but at least open your own mind to the possibility that you're being used for marketing purposes.
I guess no one sent the memo to the PC crowd that if you want a group of people to be accepted by society, you're not supposed to make it a big deal when they are around. That's like shouting 'thank god, the sky is blue!!!!'. This is, of course, acting under the assumption that Bioware is trying to add homosexuality to games to make a statement, and not because controversy sells. Having said that, Mass effect's appeal isn't in its humanity or realism (unless Bioware's implying that everyone secretly dreams of being racist again blue people). It's appeal is in being a space hero (or badass). Games that call themselves realistic (MW3, Battlefield 3, Arma 2, the Sims) would do well to remember that the reason people game is the ESCAPE reality. The more I see Mass Effect 3, the less I want of it. I adored ME2, but I hate Origin, unreasonable DLC and that demo rubbed me the wrong way with Sheperd saying things I wouldn't expect him/her to say. Now this; games that try to be 'edgy' by being 'progressive' are just sad excuses to gain revenue from controversy. Do you honestly expect me to believe that EA is some forerunner on an electronics equal rights movement?
Wow, insulting someone to that caliber is just ridiculous even for the internet. She has a right to her opinion without being persecuted like anyone else. She isn't the invisible hand of industry that wants the death of gaming; she just wants art to be available to more people. Also, Yes gamers do have some ownership. Without revenue from gamers, developers wouldn't exist. This is the age of the consumer, and a business that wants a profit has to focus on satisfying the wants and needs of that consumer. If I have spent 60 dollars of my money (the equivalent of 7.5 hours minimum wage) and over 60 hours playing a game, I think I have displayed enough commitment to show my opinion matters. Should I have direct say? Of course not, but I should have some say for my patronage. We don't need another Ocean Marketing in this industry. However, gaming is an interactive medium and adding a 'skip combat' button does look like a slap to the face of gamers who fear casualization. Making accommodations for the casual market does come with the risk of alienating gamers who have invested quite a lot into the culture. Games should primarily appeal to the people that have already sunk thousands of dollars in money and time into playing them, not focus on baiting potential markets that aren't even there. Games with story driven premises already exist, and if there is a large enough market to justify making more of them then they will be made. Sometimes people want to read Sherlock Holmes, and sometimes they just want some Lethal Weapon.
buldog300's comments