![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The game's teaser trailer was released at the Spike VGAs today. Synopsis on the article seems to reflect it. Not much more info than that though. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 01:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need a blow by blow description of the trailer? I've cut out the speculation in it but we really just need a source saying a teaser was released, and a very brief description of it. The whole contents of the trailer is not historically notable - and we cannot come to conclusions on it's overall relevance to the plot. Rehevkor ✉ 19:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need that huge description. Maybe just drop a line like you were saying in the development section. (ktmartell) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktmartell ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This may sound like a dumb question, but not everybody is from the US. If ME3 is release during "Holiday 2011", if I chose not to go on holiday in 2011, does this mean that it won't be released. Or, being as the first public holiday of 2011 is New Year's Day... you see where I'm going. Please change the term or at least add a description so that the rest of the world knows just what the hell you're on about here (like summer, autumn (fall), winter, christmas - it doesn't have to be exact but there are a lot of "holidays" - just need to narrow it down). Angry Mustelid ( talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I live in Argentina, and holidays here, are on summer (December). As a kid, I lived in UK, and holidays there, are also in December; June. Why do you suppose a north-american company would mean Q4 by saying holiday - holiday=December only in the southern hemisphere. I read the above discussion, but you're just *clarifying* what you think they mean; is there no official announcement that's a bit more specific? HuGo_87 ( talk) 06:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
134.243.210.54 (
talk) 02:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow I cannot believe someone thought that this was worth arguing about. Yes I realize that when they say "Holiday Season" the wording may be confusing to people that use the word "holiday" to mean something akin to taking time off or going on a trip. But seriously did you think that they were going to release the game when you personally took time off to take a trip? It isn't like the people at BioWare are sitting their wiating for you to take a vacation to give you the option to buy a game. I think you are an angry little person who feels that any "North American" company who does world wide business should use the vocabulary that your home country uses. Well guess what they aren't and you perfectly well knew what they meant so stop trying to make a point when there is not one to make. Sure they should use the terms "Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4" but many people wouldn't understand those and would be here complaining that they should use terms like "Holiday Season".
-JA88ERW0CK
Hi all. Any Mass Effect fan worth his salt would know that the series was originally planned as a trilogy, and this may very well still be the case, but as of now, there is still a possibility that Bioware may expand the franchise further and create more games, as speculated by this site: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2010/12/13/mass-effect-3-announced/1 While one has reason to be skeptical, the mentioned site is just one of the many places where it is said that the Mass Effect 3 might just 'not' be the final game. For this reason, i believe it would be more suitable for the article to have a reference to this alongside the mention of it being the 'final' game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.50.221 ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys. I think a development section where Casey Hudson's comments and some information about the trailer could be put would be a very useful tool. We could also put something in about the recent announcement of the game's score-composer, who I do not know the name of off the top of my head but who is apparently an Academy Award-Winner.
Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.8.181 ( talk) 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: I went ahead and made the changes I was thinking about, although it made the introduction a little bare. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.8.181 ( talk) 20:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Here are the sources. Jack wall's forum post: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/5987442/10#5991831 Jack Wall's tweet: http://twitter.com/#!/WALLofSOUND/status/35746918587961345 Sam Hulick's tweet: http://twitter.com/#!/SamHulick/status/35697479852756992 Sam hulick's facebook profile: http://www.facebook.com/#!/samhulick
194.78.37.122 ( talk) 21:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I took all the information and organized it into sections based around what is present in the Ocarina of Time article, which is a featured article.
I also deleted some information that was getting repetitive. For example, I know there is a Release section, but there is no reason for the release date to repeated three or four times.
Finally, I made sure titles were formatted the same way. All titles are now formatted in italics, as opposed to some being in italics and some being bold. We need to come to a consensus on this! :D
Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktmartell ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this isn't the right place to ask, but aren't the Reapers coming to destroy the intelligent races of the Milky Way who utilize Mass Relays and Mass Effect technologies?
They'd probably go for humans first, but I doubt they'd stop there. 67.194.184.86 ( talk) 10:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I know that ME2 on PS3 used the "Mass Effect 3 engine", yet the visuals looked exactly the same. Is the ME3 engine the same as Unreal Engine 3.5? TehMissingLink Talk 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Odds are its the xbox i swear i saw at on bioware's site and oh no need to worry it isnt forum posts but im haveing trouble finding a link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.172.248 ( talk) 09:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to Gamestop, the release date for Mass Effect 3 is 11/9/2011
Naseeg915 ( talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
please update the release info box. PAL/Europe release date is 09.03.2012. source: http://masseffect.bioware.com/me3/game/biowaretv/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanI ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kinect support in ME3 is a big deal. What do you guys think is the best way to approach writing about it? Should it have it's owen sub-header? Should it only be mentioned briefly where relevant? Ktmartell ( talk) 01:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought it's been widely confirmed that this will be an action game as opposed to a role playing game.
Think the movie Aliens switching it's genre from Alien's Horror genre Sticka ( talk) 21:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Mass Effect 3 is not being released worldwide on March 6 2012. It is scheduled for release on March 6 2012 and March 9 2012 for US and EU respectively. There are multiple sources, and many online retailers have the correct release dates stated.
Source 1: http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/06/09/mass-effect-3-live-action-trailer/
Source 2: http://thegamershub.net/2011/06/mass-effect-3-fall-of-earth-e3-2011-trailer/
Retailer:
US: http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Effect-3-PC-DVD/dp/B004FYEZMQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8
EU: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mass-Effect-3-PC-DVD/dp/B004T8C20U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8
North America on the 6th, not just the US.
While that really only emcompasses one or two other countries, its still important to note.
I doubt it's really an issue for anyone else, but I think that saying, "then there will be two love interests vying for Shepard's attention," is a little bit vague...can it be changed to "then both previous love interests will be vying for Shepard's attention,"?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHopeThisNameWorks ( talk • contribs) 05:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably best to resolve this once and for all. So, any thoughts on how to refer to Shepard with pronouns? Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, due to a single editor's edit a few months ago, refer to Shepard with as few pronouns as possible, resulting in a lot of "Shepard did this... and then Shepard did that." with a few "him or her"s sprinkled in. I personally would just prefer to refer to Shepard as a "he", since he's usually depicted as male. It makes it easier to read, so we can use both Shepard and "he", instead of "he or she", which breaks the flow a bit. Thoughts? Gary King ( talk · scripts) 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello! There is a thing you should add to this article. The player is able to pick up weapons that enemies have drop apon theire death. This is a new feature to the series. Blackjohnbird ( talk) 01:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
This may have been false information, unless it was omitted from the demo, because the feature was not present in the ME3 Demo. Kastrenzo ( talk) 00:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well then what's this about?
The article's quality ratings have started to dip a little. What needs to be improved specifically? Ktmartell ( talk) 22:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The article has a lot of information in Development and Marketing, but I'm not sure everything is in the right place. For example, the Development section talks a lot about the game's trailers and it being shown off at video game conferences. Are these pieces of developmental information, or marketing information? Ktmartell ( talk) 18:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
"By purchasing copies of Battlefield 3, players will receive a Mass Effect 3 online pass" You do not get a Mass Effect 3 Online Pass from Battlefield 3, you get a Battlefield 3 Online Pass which grants early access to the multiplayer demo of Mass Effect 3. EasilyLost ( talk) 14:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is corporate shenanigans. There aren't 1000 actual variables, only about 50. The other '950 variables' they refer to are minor and unrelated story choices. Basically, BioWare is making it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.58.64 ( talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
134.243.210.54 ( talk) 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC) While you are probably right that some of the choices made will not have a hand in how the game ends, like the pointless quest to get a fish and tell the Krogans that it came from the Prosiduim will probably not have an effect. But where did you come up with the number of 50 choices? Was there an article or website that states that?
134.243.210.54 ( talk) 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)JA88ERW0CK
Could you add the PEGI rating? It's 18. You can verify this on any game website (such as game.co.uk) or the official website itself (if you start watching a trailer it shows you the rating, not sure if there's any other way to find it on their site, didn't check too deeply). Lord-Schmee ( talk) 20:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
“Yes, is required for all PC editions of Mass Effect 3, physical or digital.” To play Mass Effect 3 PC users must install the program known as "Origin" on their computers. Rendering them vulnerable to EA's brand of corporate espionage unless they “opt-out of Mass Effect 3 data collection from inside the game.”.
Furtled ( talk) 23:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Not exactly neutral POV there, I'll add the basic info but without the editorialising.
I don't see how is does not constitute corporate espionage. In Germany Origin has been banned because of how invasive it is, it was proven to even be able to access people's tax files on their computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.97.180 ( talk) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I read the bit "Gameplay in the multiplayer mode will only allow for players to carry two guns at a time in their inventory ... weapons will be changed by holding down a button" and thought it sounded odd. I checked the source site and it looks like it's a Video Game site. Might need to be amended for PC players. 118.208.177.8 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC).
Do we really need to give background information in the plot section? Ktmartell ( talk) 20:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering what the wider love interests mentioned by Casey Hudson entail. Gay content's already been mentioned what else? Wider means new so multiple partners, pederastry (legal?) what?
I'm assuming celibacy is still a legitimate option to pursue but that there's no way to avoid surprises? I got a shock in Skyrim when I realised the male blacksmith was coming onto my chap. 118.208.50.217 ( talk) 10:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not true that Shepard dies in all endings. If he destroys the reapers and has a high enough effective military strength, then he lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.36.184.105 ( talk) 04:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, only another 22 seconds to explain Shepard alive. But do you think we shouldn't deserve more than 22 seconds? and this 22 seconds and the different ending have about 5% different only. Here is Jeremy say that is not Shepard is Easter Egg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H_A7SeawU4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.93.58 ( talk) 14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This section needs a point about the popular Indoctrination Theory - as explained here on IGN http://www.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Indoctrination_Theory User:RussianSpy27 ( talk) 11:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A bunch of so-called internet trolls decided to give a game a bad grade on metacritic, I'm guessing because of the day one dlc... Therefore, I think that when the "Ratings" section is written, only official, gamer magazine ratings should be written there, because there can't be a normal user rating because of the aforementioned trolls.
-- 94.253.201.207 ( talk) 08:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well for the record did you actually read the User reviews. Unlike MW3 which was essentially zeros because we like BF3, these were well thought out. Including the awful endings, the fact that choices from the previous games affected nothing (except who is still alive), the pandering to homosexuals, and the poor writing. Not arguing for or against inclunsion, just saying actually read the reviews, because they are well thought out and bring up very good points. Superbowlbound ( talk) 15:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I haven't read them because I don't want to spoil the game for myself. However, I don't hate homosexuals and believe everyone should be able to enjoy the game regardless of their sexual orientation. I do hope that the game isn't as bad as people say it is, because I don't think it would get such good ratings from Xbox magazines, etc., and because I liked Mass Effect 2. -- 94.253.201.207 ( talk) 19:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It is on 500 hundred negatives and counting, just not "some trolls". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.155.183 ( talk) 06:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Could somebody put up some info about the DRM used in this game? My purchase decision depends on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.83.1.251 ( talk) 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3 Perhaps sum1 with the authority could add it to the article, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.180.171 ( talk) 21:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Some information should be given about the Arrival DLC, everybody did not buy & play it, that DLC is leads to the beggining of Mass Effect 3, we should atleast add that what kind of a crime Shepard committed that he was being held for Trail on Earth at the start of Mass Effect 3. Some of this information was on the article Mass Effect 2 but it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.201.160 ( talk) 22:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
we need more detail in the plot section is that ok with everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that there seems to be an "Edit War" movement by some angered fans.
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9772095
Whether you agree or disagree with their opinions, I don't think we should let people with agendas write a NPOV article, and I think we need to take some care here. I dislike WP being used to "mount opinion campaigns" as it ruins objectivity. I'm not sure this is a relevant controversy right now, so we need to take a close look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRTroy ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/10/the-problem-with-biowares-mass-effect-3-day-one-dlc-from-ashes/ http://social.bioware.com/633606/polls/28989/ http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9512916/729 comment added by Sid ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Typically I am all for waiting but something should be said sooner rather than later regarding the fan backlash because it has already been mentioned on multiple prominent gaming media sites and the article in its current state displays universal praise when there is in fact a dichotomy of opinion between critics and fans. While I know fan reception of videogames isn't typically mentioned on wikipedia articles, I believe the attention it has garnered from the mainstream gaming media warrants its inclusion in order to maintain neutrality. The longer this waits, the longer the article is one sided towards the mainstream critics' reception instead of universal reception. http://www.gamespot.com/features/why-do-you-hate-mass-effect-3-6365175/ http://egamer.co.za/2012/03/mass-effect-3-suffers-massive-user-backlash/ http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/10810.html http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/03/06/mass-effect-3-backlash-why-gamers-should-be-ashamed/ Redredryder ( talk) 06:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm okay with how it is currently written, though I don't know if that's just part of an edit war. You can't call it balanced and write about universal praise when multiple sources clearly indicate a backlash within the game's community. Redredryder ( talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I would humbly suggest, that since the ending controversy has progressed beyond the gaming media, and is now playing out in the mass media (the BBC for one) that this section warrants expansion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17458208 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.28.82 ( talk) 18:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think there should be an addition to the reception section involving Bioware's handling of game content. Specifically one of the characters in the game Tali'Zorah. One of the bigger reveals of this final game was supposed to be the unmasking of Tali'zorah, a character famous for dawning a helmet and never showing her face. The reveal involved an in game picture showing her with her helmet. The problem was the image used was taken from a stock photo company. This issue has been controversial among fans due to the fact they couldn't even take the time to model an appropriate face model for such a moment. They took two games of build up and decided to end it with a google search and a quick photoshop.
Basically I think there should just be an addition that says the following.
"Fans declared backlash upon discovering stock photos were used in the unmasking of character Tali'Zorah"
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116202-BioWare-Uses-Stock-Photo-for-Tali-in-Mass-Effect-3
Bigbuddhabelly ( talk) 16:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Also this : http://crystalprisonzone.blogspot.in/2012/03/bioware-day-one-dlc-developed.html?m=1,http://geek.pikimal.com/2012/03/08/mass-effect-3s-from-ashes-is-disc-locked/ DLC character is already on the disc and buyers have payed double
Some guy's blog is not a WP:RS. Find a reliable source, then we can discuss if it merits inclusion. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 17:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
You see these things will never be out officially on reliable sources. I know the chances of my request happening are next to nil so its up to u to take it or leave it. I got 2 more source http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Mass-Effect-3-Day-One-DLC-Was-Disc-All-40298.html http://www.bagogames.com/mass-effect-3-downloadable-content-disk/
http://www.destructoid.com/did-bioware-lie-about-mass-effect-3-s-day-one-dlc--223448.phtml
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/11/new-video-shows-mass-effect-3-day-one-dlc-already-on-disc/ is the best proof The DLC was already on the standard disc and people have paid double to download 600 mb of data which the company claimed was the DLC. The article has proof that the DLC is already on the standard edition and people have been tricked into buying the digital/collectors edition.
What more proof do you want ? Aren't forbes and game magazines valid enough ? I, as a part of the consumer base, want to highlight certain controversies that aren't good and yet I get the feeling that I'm being tossed around.Is it really your intention to edit the article or am I just being asked to foolishly run errands to collect "reliable" evidence ?
Also i want to post a review link that contains the truth instead of the glowing reviews. http://gamingshogun.com/2012/03/09/mass-effect-3-leaves-me-angry-a-review-pc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid ( talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sid (
talk) 17:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Sid ( talk) 17:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding Sid comment added by Sid ( talk)
Not done: Like swarm said, please be specific about what you want to add and provide reliable sources. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Answered set to no because the user did as requested but this has been ignored. I am interested in how this will play out.
89.166.239.7 (
talk) 12:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This article definitely needs a section for the various controversies associated with the title at this point, primarily the whole day 1 Prothean DLC affair. Dragon Age II had such a section, the major difference being that while most of the DA2 controversies were disproven or resolved, the opposite is happening here, as it has now turned out that BioWare have blatantly lied to their customers about the DLC being on the disc ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRRpGlmtws8 - I know this isn't good enough for an article source, but it shows us editors what's up). I spent a good few weeks undoing the work of trolls and arguing against the controversy section in the DA2 article (because most of them were indeed resolved), but even I will gladly admit that one is needed here. I propose people start saving the various articles about the controversy from reliable gaming media sites and gather them here so we can write up a proper, well-sourced and NPOV controversy segment for the article. -- Smoochiekins ( talk) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The supposed 'severity' of any controversy is too early to tell anyway. I still, for the life of me, do not understand everyone's rush. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 11:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand the rush in selectively rehashing glowing reviews and opinions either. Has wikipedia succumbed to EA's influence? 89.166.239.7 ( talk) 12:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change the generally positive reviews in reception to critical acclaim. Currently it is the highest rated video game of 2012
Sjay1994 ( talk) 04:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. There seem to be enough quoted "criticisms" in the Reception section, such as "fails to stand up as its own game in the same manner as its predecessors" and "...the end of the series is a mixed bag. Satisfying in some ways, nonsensical in others, and ultimately too simple" to make "generally positive" a pretty fair assessment at the moment, imo.
Begoon
talk 05:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
While checking out this game's reviews I came across something not totally unexpected; namely that while professional critics overwhelmingly gave ME3 a great review, the user rating has not been so great. Currently the reception section is quite glowing because it is based purely on professional critic sources, so I'm proposing that we use the metacritic user rating as a source of parity. Can we use user ratings from sites like metacritic or are they consider to be equivalent to online surveys? Saedon ( talk) 10:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I see where you both are coming from and it does make sense to apply the user-generated content rule to Metacritic as well. In line with the requirements explained, how about this then: 'User feedback on Metacritic has been generally unfavourable and allegations of preferential treatment by means of deleting profane reviews (unlike Modern Warfare 3) have been dismissed by Metacritic'. 89.166.239.7 ( talk) 15:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/06/metacritic-deleting-mass-effect-3-user-reviews/
Personally I think that the existance of negative viewer reviews should be mentioned. Failing to do that is in my opinion taking sides and objective. ( talk) 22 March 2012
As reported here, here and here, the multiplayer has a huge bug connected with user profile and his progress. There also many another bugs, look at the bioware forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.188.36.16 ( talk) 01:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Many players are unable to carry over their custom appearances from the early games, with little response from EA and Bioware, and are unwilling to play singleplayer until the problem is fixed, with many opting to return the game rather than play without the custom face they've played throughout the series. Can someone add the character face import issue to reception? Limited explanation from EA of the problem: https://help.ea.com/article/cannot-import-save-game-for-mass-effect-3-on-x360 News coverage: http://kotaku.com/5890793/oh-dear-mass-effect-3s-character-import-isnt-working-properly There is also a poll up on Bioware forums with nearly 1000 votes of disappointment over the issue: http://social.bioware.com/1317520/polls/29029/
and the main thread is up to more than 160 pages:
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/9661093/163 203.206.176.7 ( talk) 03:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the Retake Mass Effect charity drive would be worth mentioning under Reception. Fans angry about the ending raise over $50k for kids in hospitals. Anyone else think that this is pretty significant?
http://retakemasseffect.chipin.com/retake-mass-effect-childs-play Redredryder ( talk) 06:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree, the controversy for this far exceeds that of Dragonage 2 which has already set a precedent for including a controversy heading. Bioware have also officially acknowledge the fan outrage through several sources (Twitter, Bioware Forum and interviews with Gaming websites). However I'm not sure if any one of them fit the criteria to be used as a source for Wikipedia. This will be difficult to address because the fan outrage has been mainly through social media and hence the Bioware response has been through social media. Do we ignore this real phenomena on Wikipedia simply because it doesn't meet the prescribed standards of a source? I vote we don't ignore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.80.9 ( talk) 07:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The big reason we are slow to edit here is for the following reasons.
And I will probably add these myself sometime next week--but keep in mind, there is no rush to discuss these--the only rush IMO would be from people trying to use the articles to promote a campaign or POV. We don't have to add breaking news to an article every hour, unless it involves some major world event.
JRT ( talk) 00:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The links I mentioned above come primarily from the same professional gaming sites whose reviews we added to this article within an hour of being published. Reviews from professional critics alone do not define how a game is received, yet why was there no wait to write a Reception section, which now has been woefully unbalanced for the past week and a half and has essentially been promoting the game despite numerous criticisms (which have been picked up by the media)? The point of mentioning the charity [14] isn't to promote it, but because it was formed in protest to the controversial ending and has received significant coverage. If we are going to claim we need to wait, then we should wait a week or two from the release date of games before writing ANYTHING about how it was received. We shouldn't rush to write a paragraph an hour after critic reviews are published and assume their views are universal. Redredryder ( talk) 08:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Redredryder. Referencing the charity drive and highlighting the particular controversies is not the same as picking a side. It is entirely appropriate that this controversy should be pointed out, with the reader being able to form their own opinions. To my mind the the charity drive in and of itself is very significant and possibly unprecedented in gaming history. I can't see any reason for this not be included even in 10 years. That being said I do think it would be wise to perhaps exercise some patience and approach this impartially without advocating one side or another. However it shouldn't be whitewashed as the controversy has been highlighted in many media sites that are now referenced as sources in this article. 123.2.80.9 ( talk) 10:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
"The game's ending has been controversial with some fans." This statement and the fact that this huge controversy is given only two lines is an outright breach of NPV. The polls have shown more than 89% feel the endings were starkly lacking, that's not "some". Also the basis upon which the objections are being raised are serious, some wanting to officially complain that Bioware failed to live up to explicit promise of its statements: "player's decision throughout the game will dictate the outcome". I don't think we have to mention everything like it's a news website, but diluting what is going on with weasel words is hardly informational. WHat they decide to do about it can remain for later, but for now we should be fair and publish references to all the social and media websites that blasted the game's ending so hard. 175.139.2.246 ( talk) 18:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Now even BBC has acknowledged it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17444719 Perhaps it's time to expand on the ending controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.180.171 ( talk) 14:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Should we address the issues relating to visual disabilities and various aspects of the Mass Effect 3 ending? Red and Blue are imperceptible to some with color blindness. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001997/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathonm ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
@Redredryder - Excuse me? My concern was legitimate; I wasn't clear on the policy and Dbrodbeck clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by —Johnathonm
The controversy over the game's ending is definitely notable enough for it to be its own section or subsection within the article. Several major news outlets have covered this, and eventually Bioware relented to actually change the ending. Some news sites to support this:
Note that the colors mentioned for your choices are not in the correct order. "Destroy" is red, "Control" is blue, "Synthesize" Is green. CGorky ( talk) 05:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
At what point does this theory become a point for inclusion in this article? Forbes has already seemingly legitimised it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/03/21/did-the-real-mass-effect-3-ending-go-over-everyones-heads/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/03/21/mass-effect-3-ending-the-indoctrination-theory-is-the-easy-way-out/
Is it simply a case of wait and see if BioWare adds it to the story officially or can it be added to the reception section along with the rest of the fan controversy?-- FLStyle ( talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it is because I am not familiar with the rules here, but after I view the credit list from the the game's soundtrack, I want to ask why Clint Mansell, who only composed 1.5 piece of music, is the only one showing in the "Composer(s)" section while all other composers that contributed more than Mr. Mansell are hidden. Is it suppose to be like that? Eno TALK 19:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The reception section of the article contains some good information about the disgruntled fans of the series in regards to the ending and the charity drive they did. It's been deleted which is stupid. Wikipedia contains relevant information about subjects. The ending of a 3 game plot arc and it's reception among fans is relevant. It isn't on the fringes, it isn't rare or even uncommon. Go to any comment section in a news article about it, any video of the trailers released, and you'll see a lot of disgruntled fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.14.49 ( talk) 03:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
the following is factually inaccurate
"The game will include mini-games and Hammerhead and Mako missions"
No minigames or vechicles section appear in the game so the above text should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 ( talk) 16:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Done. SG 2090 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This entire article reads like it was written by a BioWare/EA PR Representative. There are countless points throughout where it reads as though BioWaremaremthe greatest of all video game developers because of all of the amazing things they supposedly do (that don't even deserve to be in the article). Somebody needs to go over this with a fine toothed comb to get rid of all of the fluff that promotes BioWare. I was under the impression that Wikipedia exists to give an unbiased view of things, but this here is even more biased than articles I've seen with the bias banner, and nobody seems to care here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.177.193 ( talk) 00:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong biased about the article, it tells us about the things that the developers added in the game compared to its prequels, it tells us about the DLCs, Release, Promotion, Development and the Plot of the game. As far as the Reception section goes then it is very clear the game has received CRITICAL ACCLAIM, the game's metascore for all versions proves that, even the user reception for the game as a whole, apart from the ending, has been generally favorable (apart from metacritic users). I don't think this article has been written by a Representative of EA or Bioware. Calling a game that has been heavy praised by the critics, a critically acclaimed game and saying how much various critics have praised it, is not biased on anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.182.76 ( talk) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
When the crucible AI says that creators of organic beings are doomed to be killed by their own creations, it could be a reference Starcraft, as the Xel'Naga (creators of a organic race, Zerg) were killed and made extinct from their own creations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.210.111 ( talk) 21:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The writing of the DLC section is abominable; it's not laid out well, and the sentence structure makes no sense in some places. It should be incredibly simple to tidy it up a bit without needing to change any of the sources. -- Wordwyrm ( talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Also the title of the DLC "From Ashes" is written as "In Ashes". -- ChoephiX ( talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Under the Reception subsection I believe the first sentence in regards to IGN's review should be removed. The reason being an IGN journalist, Jessica Chobot, modeled and voiced a character for the game. While she did not write IGN's review for the game, her status as an IGN personality and appearance in the game nevertheless compromises the journalistic integrity of the review. Chobot is mentioned in the article but her affiliation is not. In an effort to maintain neutrality, I do not see why the IGN review should be allowed without mention of Chobot as an IGN employee. http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Diana_Allers Redredryder ( talk) 01:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
IGN published an extremely positive review for a game that contains the likeness and voice of one of their personalities (She plays a journalistic character not unlike her role in real life for IGN). Whether or not the score of the review is justified is irrelevant. However, knowing that their review of the game will influence sales on at least some level, IGN has a monetary incentive to give high marks because success of the game will lead to more exposure to Chobot and in turn their own site. The point is Wikipedia is setting a dangerous precedent if IGN's review is considered credible. Particularly suspicious is that it is the very first review mentioned if one reads the Reception subsection. At the very least the conflict of interest should be mentioned. Redredryder ( talk) 04:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see how this falls under original research and not verifiability. It's a conflict of interest with IGN and Bioware. If the reviewer wrote the same review for a different company I would have no problem with the review. When an employee of IGN works on the game in question and IGN subsequently publishes a review of that game, then IGN as a source becomes conflicted. See WP:QS Redredryder ( talk) 19:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
To protect out integrity, we should mention that IGN could be serving their own interests by giving the game a particularly high rating then. The fact that a member of IGN has personal stakes in the game's success is noteworthy. This is an encyclopaedia, not a PR site. 89.166.239.7 ( talk) 12:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
IGN is a popular video game review source. The score of 9.5 is only slightly better than the average Mass Effect 3 reviews. If IGN gave a review a lot higher than the other publishers, then you could leave IGN out of it, or even mention the connection. However it's review of the game contains criticism and gives a lower score than several other review sources. IGN is a big company, it's parent News Corp is even larger. If you delved deep enough you could probably find similar relationships between employees/subsidiaries/families/friends and video games. Crzyclarks ( talk) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Can't help but think there should be at least a mention on the indoctrination theory, it's a huge bone of contention with fans online and has a massive community creating a very strong argument for the ending being a hoax leading to unprecedented levels of hype for the downloadable epilogue. Members of Bioware haven't confirmed or denied it as such, but they've said that fan response wouldn't be anywhere near as angry if they knew what was coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.61.230 ( talk) 00:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section
Controversy, there's a {{
fact}}
tagged on the first sentence,
This seems unjustified in the face of multiple sources in the same paragraph which easily back up that straightforward assertion. Imho the {{
fact}}
tag should be removed. Maintenance tags should not be used for POV purposes like this. If anyone has any serious doubts as to the quoted statement's validity, feel very free to remove the statement. Don't slap a fact tag on it because you don't like that it's true. Sorry for rambling, --
195.14.199.196 (
talk) 07:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the reference to the Better Business Bureau in the Controversy section should be removed. It was not the BBB as a whole but one member making a blog post. In addition, the reasons cited on the blog post as for why the author felt that the game was falsely advertised are demonstrably incorrect. CaiusRagnarok ( talk) 18:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The User Score on Metacritic is currently 4.9 - that should be mentioned. I don't think it's sensible to rely on the professional critics to gauge the response to games, especially to the ones released by megacorps. The gaming press and the giant publishers have a very close relationship. Websites like IGN and Gamespot rely on the big publisher's advertiser bucks for most of their funds, and the few print mags rely on them to stay competitive. They aren't impartial. I'm not saying that the articles shouldn't mention them, but now that sites like Metacritic allow us to gauge the reactions of people who don't rely on EA to pay the rent, there's no excuse for ignoring them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.102.29 ( talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with citing aggregate reviews from IMDb or Metacritic. Citing them on an individual basis may be more problematic, but I'm referring to the aggregate here. Why wouldn't this be allowed? — SMAP ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Dbrodbeck that is ridiculous and you know it. "Professional" reviews give this game an astounding 90/100 across the board. Individual reviewers in aggregate (on amazon.com) give this game a failing grade of 50/100. Ask yourself this question: Which is more reliable? The one written by gaming magazines who are paid by advertisements from the game companies or the actual players of the game. Wikipedia is full of itself if it doesn't think aggregate user reviews are worthwhile! SMAP ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we need to include the Metacritic scores. We have a whole section on controversy that covers how outraged fans are, and it's cited by reliable sources. I understand being upset, but we can't do any more than we already have unless it's covered by reliable media outlets. -- Teancum ( talk) 00:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I know we have spoken about this before, but I don't think we ever resolved the issue. Do we really need to say "his/her" everytime we talk about Shepard? It reads horribly. Ktmartell ( talk) 21:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I know that most will disagree with me, but I think option one is best. Using "his" makes sense because the male Shepard is primarily used in marketing and most people use the male Shepard. As long as people know that a female option is available, I think using "his" is the cleanest way to do it. Ktmartell ( talk) 21:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Can we change the beginning of the controversy section from "endings have" to "ending has?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.215.8 ( talk) 23:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Since the page is locked, I'm just leaving a suggestion here; it really should either be better written or deleted. It really comes off as a lot of hearsay as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.39.34 ( talk) 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It needs to be deleted. It's 99% opinion and sources nothing.-- 68.1.111.29 ( talk) 01:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I feel that the controversy section should at least show the level of fan opinion in some way. Perhaps with a link to the poll where 70k votes have been cast? http://social.bioware.com/633606/polls/28989/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.28.82 ( talk) 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think, that in article should be also mentioned controversy of Extended Cut DLC as its reception was really mixed. Robin WH ( talk) 10:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Robin - the current state of the article seems to suggest the new expanded ending put to rest all concerns, but it certainly has not. It merely fleshes out the original ending without changing, replacing, or fully addressing some of the most fundamental issues. 24.86.240.116 ( talk) 03:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the controversy over the ending has overshadowed the lesser but still significant fan outrage over the inability for the most dedicated fans of the series to play as 'their' custom Shepard. I'm talking about the facial import issues for those who had created a custom Shepard in ME1. This issue, like the ending, was a matter of reneging on a major advertised gameplay feature, or at least a promise that Bioware failed to live up to. The whole vaunted unique feature of this trilogy of RPG's was that we were told from the beginning that the games linked together to tell one epic story, and we could play as our own custom version of the hero/heroine through the entire saga, with the consequences of our decisions carrying over through the entire story - er, except to the big finale, apparently... most of the longest-standing fans of the series had waiting breathlessly for this game to release, only to be immediately faced with frustration and disappointment. The only thing that prevented even more of an outcry was that many players didn't start with ME1. Bioware did eventually fix the issue a few months later, but that was far too late to help anyone who had eagerly bought the game at launch, especially given that there was no assurance of if or when a patch would be made available. I request that this matter be given a mention under 'reception' (this was less a matter of opinion than the ending, yet it was more than just a bug) or in a unique section/sub-section, perhaps titled, 'import issue', or 'customization problem'
24.86.240.116 (
talk) 03:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The Metacritic user rating was quite bad for ME3, maybe someone could add this to the reception section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoopidCity ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, so what you would consider NO BIAS is from a company that gets ad revenue from the product they're reviewing right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.37.103 ( talk) 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
How's this for a source that the ending and game was panned? http://www.ign.com/blogs/goldenadamas/2012/03/09/how-mass-effect-3-free-additional-dlc-endings-can-redeem-the-trilogy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperBlade ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we add the information about, that some mass effect fans theorize that Shepard is indoctrinated, and that the only way to break free is to choose the "Destroy Ending". ( Grim Sparky ( talk) 03:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
Personally, I think user reviews should only be mentioned if they're covered in reliable sources. While there are issues with professional critics of any calibre (" this gets my lowest rating ever: seven thumbs up."), they nevertheless are experts. User reviews also don't touch on aspects of the game, as evidenced by the hundreds of people who hated Modern Warfare 3 so much they evidently spent $200 to give it a negative review on three different platforms. Sceptre ( talk) 23:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Should there be mention here of the building negative reaction to EA supplying only some pre-order bonus codes for the AT-12 Raider Shotgun DLC to select customers despite repeated assurances from Chris Priestly and advertising that it would be provided to all pre-orders placed on their Origin service? Some users are even complaining that they did not receive their channel-wide offer of the M-55 Argus Assault Rifle. Many threads on BioWare Social Network were created discussing the shortage, and the YouTube clip advertising the shotgun has recently been hit with a few (<200) vocal dislikes. There is also a rumor which seems to be floating around that the DLC was offered as PC only, based mostly on EA Customer Service representatives saying they could not find the codes for consoles. Despite this, the complaint of unsent items has been expressed by PC and console users alike. I've been looking but haven't found an official source for either side of this issue yet. 70.75.89.120 ( talk) 08:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. 'Generally unfavourable user reception (3.5)' should be added. Who are we to dismiss 1,700 voices? Let's stay objective please. The number is relevant. Unless wikipedia wants to support its own positive opinion of this game, user reception should be reported if we use Metacritic.
And secondly point brought up against Metacritic user evaluation can also be applied to magazine reviews. Who are we to say users go with the flow but magazines don't? Let's be real and add the information. 89.166.239.7 ( talk) 12:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
'Metacritic rants' is a PR term, the entire paragraph here is invalid and biased from the outset. We shouldn't use it. Say it as it is instead: we will not use 1,700 user reviews to taint fanboys' love of the game (I liked the game as well but negative opinions should be allowed a mention as well since praise of the game was not unanimous at all. No one is asking to delete magazine opinion or favour the 'rants'. 89.166.239.7 ( talk) 12:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Reliability of the user score in judging the quality of the game itself is not what should concern us. An encyclopedia should report the major facts relevant to the topic of the article. The metacritic score is a major fact relevant to the topic. A reader should judge for themselves whether the metacritic score judges the quality of the game reliably. The source of the fact itself (metacritic score), however, is reliable. It is our job to be objective and neutral and to keep facts about the game in one place. Some of us may disagree that the game is bad, others may agree. But we should report the average user reception nontheless. This is not the same as reporting individual opinions (and even this is OK in the case when the individual is high profile). This article is not an advertisement for the game. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USERGENERATED#Statements_of_opinion . It is written clearly that statements of opinion are allowed as long as they are not self-published, written by bloggers or so. I.e., metacritic user scores qualify. So I am putting the information back. Please do not remove it unilaterally. Meznaric ( talk) 18:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, the fact that another article does something is not a valid reason to do it here. The nature of Wikipedia means that any/all articles may contain things that are against policy - the fact that something is there only proves that no-one has deleted it (yet), not that it is acceptable. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ( talk) 18:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd disagree with adding the Metacritic scores. The game was bombed with negative reviews before it even came out. Many of the low Metacritic scores are based on reaction to specific controversial elements rather than the game as a whole: the ending, homosexual relationship, Diane Allers, day one DLC. In this case, Metacritic information is unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaiusRagnarok ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Controversy" section, the following is stated:
"One of the writers of the Mass Effect series, Patrick Weekes, revealed that executive producer Cassy Hudson locked him and the other writers out of production of the ending."
This should be changed to reflect the considerable doubt over the true authorship of the post attributed to Patrick Weekes. Here is my suggested change:
"One of the writers of the Mass Effect series, Patrick Weekes, revealed that executive producer Cassy Hudson locked him and the other writers out of production of the ending. However, the post attributed to Weekes was quickly removed and it is not clear whether the information was genuine or posted by someone pretending to be Weekes."
Sources: http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/ http://www.gamefront.com/did-a-mass-effect-3-writer-slam-the-ending/ Redfive27 ( talk) 17:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Mdann52 (
talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)I'm confused about the statement "the game...marks the final chapter in the Mass Effect trilogy of video games, completing the story of Commander Shepard" - the "sources" for this is a blog post, and a [i]forums[/i] post (of all things...). That's some pretty low standards. I don't see any mention of anything from Bioware or EA.
Instead, in the "best" ending, after the story is over you get a dialogue with the following, as can be watched here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6v3PK88ZOM (just search youtube for "mass effect stargazer")
How can one read that and not think there will be another installment? And why on earth is a forum post considered a source for whether or not this is the final game in the series, especially given the actual in-game content that contradicts such low-quality sources? I see nothing from EA/Bioware that suggests that the franchise is done. Shepard took in a breath if you "won" the game (which was very hard to do). Shepard isn't dead, Stargazer says there's another story. Is that not good enough against a forums post? Brianlamere ( talk) 17:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Can we put EA's criticism for including gay characters in Mass Effect 3? They did the same thing with Star Wars: The Old Republic. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/09/ea-fights-back-against-anti-gay-boycott-with-help-from-stephen-fry-and-yoda/ Lacon432 ( talk) 14:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
There has been some information about the Wii U version by Bioware on the official BioWare blog and at the EA 2012 Summer Showcase. The Wii U version will have some DLC present on the disk including The Extended Cut (which will be the default ending for this version) and will also include some backstory DLC that will allow players to make decisions from Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. It was mentioned that the game will have the original backstory DLC "Mass Effect: Genesis" to make decisions from Mass Effect and an additional one for Mass Effect 2 with details and a name yet to be announced. The Wii U version will have gameplay mechanics that are different to the other versions, such as using the Wii U Gamepad to give Shepard's squad members, thier orders in regards to powers and weapon changes without having to pause the game to do so. It will also allow players to see a map of thier surroundings with squad members and eniemes highlighted. The Wii U version has been confirmed by EA that it will be a launch title for the console. B.Jones 11:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill407 ( talk • contribs)
Bioware co-founders Dr. Zeschuk & Dr. Muzyka retired from Bioware in September 2012 but stated they made their decision to retire in April 2012, placing that decision during the height of the controversy. source: http://wegotthiscovered.com/news/biowares-cofounders-retire/ (or their own blogs on Bioware's official site) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.20.254 ( talk) 19:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
in other words, even basic timeline information doesn't make the edit if it's not deemed flattering enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.20.254 ( talk) 12:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Michael Pachter, a video game analyst for Wedbush securities tends to agree that the controversy had something to do with the doctors' departure. source: http://www.technobuffalo.com/gaming/analyst-blames-whiney-bioware-fans-for-bioware-docs-retirements/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.177.74 ( talk) 10:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
as requested before ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_Effect_3#Edit_request_on_29_September_2012) Id like to add the me3 explorer project to the controversy. What more sources do I have to provide? if facebook isnt reliable, why is the retake movement (a facebook group) then accepted? would a link to sourceforce (binary source) or to the forum about it, be better? greetz WV Links: fb: www.facebook.com/pages/Creating-new-end-for-Mass-Effect-3/145902408865659 sf: sourceforge.net/projects/me3explorer/ forum: me3explorer.freeforums.org/ 141.46.207.19 ( talk) 09:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
you know what, fuck you wikipedia ppl, I dont know what more sources your need, modders exist, wikipedia gets dumb... bye
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
84.181.7.79 ( talk) 18:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I dont want to change something, just add: the mod community starts to hack the game for creating new ends by fans, maybe this should be added to the end controversy. Source: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Creating-new-end-for-Mass-Effect-3/145902408865659
greetz WV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.181.31.229 ( talk) 20:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: well, dont know if it counts, but thats the program that does all the modding: http://sourceforge.net/projects/me3explorer/
Does Kotaku count as a reliable source? here's the link
http://kotaku.com/5958700/theres-now-a-mod-that-gives-mass-effect-3-a-happy-ending 202.72.135.193 ( talk) 06:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change 'your fighting against' to 'you are fighting against' in the Multiplayer section, as the grammar is incorrect. Nuwan ag ( talk) 06:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Done - with
this edit, avoiding 'you/you are' entirely I think is preferable. Thank you for pointing this out.
Begoon
talk 06:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as though this is nominated under 5 catagories, including GOTY, and the 2011 VGA's are already mentioned on this page, I say it's worth mentioning under reception. Pluvia ( talk) 08:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Done Checked out the Assassin's Creed 3 page to see if they mentioned the VGA's, they had, so I added the links and nominations in the reception section.
Pluvia (
talk) 09:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Rather than starting an editing war I'll mention here why it should be left as "some fans". The five sources cited at the start of the controversy section all link to articles mentioning this facebook poll as a source for fan outrage. As of writing this it has 63.4k likes, which is 4.2% of the sales figures mentioned in March alone. That is a vast minority, so unless anyone can find a better source than the ones mentioned in the controversy section that shows it's "a sizable amount" of fans that were displeased with the ending I suggest we leave the grammar as "some", as that doesn't suggest minority or majority. Pluvia ( talk) 10:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Been attempting Google searches regarding the exact numbers of dissatisfaction. Problem is the polls in question have been VERY erratic at best. For example, that CNN reference I just added in a few minutes ago has shown that a number of fans that are vehemently against the ending were as high as 89% at the time of CNN's report. The original intent behind using the word "sizable" is for the sake of neutrality, because no one knows if it's an extreme minority, or a silent majority. Not every single individual will express his/her dislike of the Mass Effect 3 ending due to multiple unknown variables. Dibol ( talk) 10:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Therefore we can't say it was a sizable amount, Wikipedia isn't about guessing how much people disliked it, we have to use sources. The source mentioned five times in the controversy section points to it being a vast minority, which is not a sizable amount, therefore some is the most neutral word. Pluvia ( talk) 11:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thousands is also not neutral wording, as that could be anything from 2k to 999k, I would be fine mentioning thousands as long as we mention how much of a minority the Retake movement are. Some is neutral wording compared to "many" or "few", this is the middle ground. The controversy section arguably has trouble with neutrality at the moment and it doesn't need anymore bias. If you undo it again I'll take this to someone higher up than us to decide. Pluvia ( talk) 17:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Controversy section.
The article currently states "On September 18, 2012, Bioware announced that it's Co-founders, Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuck, had officially retired and left Bioware to pursue other goals.[185] An Ex-Bioware Developer claimed that the negative fan feedback of Mass Effect 3's ending and Star Wars: The Old Republic were responsible for their retirement"
I believe its worth mentioning on September 28th, Dr. Ray Muzika stated on his twitter the following "I respect/revere fans, because they speak with deep, honest passion. Journalists speculating on ill-founded rumors should reassess approach. Good websites demand clarity and credibility – lesser ones enable ill-informed individuals to make stuff up about other people" in response to the comments made by said Ex-bioware Developer. Leading people to believe the comment about the reason for their retirement being fan backlash to be nothing more than unfounded gossip.
His tweet can be found https://twitter.com/RayMuzyka/status/251808651671642113
As well as an article by Cinema Blend. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/BioWare-Co-Founder-Ray-Muzyka-Defends-Passionate-Fans-Blasts-Gaming-Journalists-47573.html
I believe adding Dr. Muzyca's reply to a comment that spoke for him is an important addition to the controversy section of the Mass Effect 3 entry.
Quikbeam ( talk) 03:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this additional credit under the Writer(s) section: "John Dombrow (senior)" Citation: [1] 173.181.87.133 ( talk) 18:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I came across an article that analyzes the reasons for the fan outcry over ME3. It's published on GameSpot by one of their senior editors, so it qualifies as a reliable source, I think, and I haven't seen many articles discussing the topic from a neutral POV. Maybe one of the primary editors of this article could add it here? -- Koveras ☭ 12:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to be reasonable here. I'm trying to preserve the quality and objective nature of Wikipedia here. But if anyone even dares to readd the bullshit that was spewed over this page without cleaning it up, without the completely false information, without the goddamned lies, then I will deal with them personally.
I've had enough of Retroller bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.185.171 ( talk) 18:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The Downloadable Content section needs updating. It's unfortunate that a person has to buy the game to find out what DLC is available for the game. As of today's date:
DLC Title | Type | Release Date | Relative Price* | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
From Ashes | Singleplayer | 02 March 2012 | 0.16% / Free with Collector's Edition | 0-Day DLC. Includes an alternate outfit for each squadmate, a mission, a new squadmate Javik who is the last surviving Prothean, and a new weapon. |
Resurgence | Multiplayer | 10 April 2012 | Free | 2 new maps, 3 new weapons, 4 pcs. of equipment, and 4 new classes. |
Rebellion | Multiplayer | 29 April 2012 | Free | 2 new maps, 3 new weapons, misc. new equipment & consumables, and 4 new classes. |
Extended Cut | Singleplayer | 26 June 2012 | Free | Revamped ending of game. Nearly 4 gig of content. |
Earth | Multiplayer | 17 July 2012 | Free | 3 new maps & weapons, misc. new equipment & consumables, and 6 new classes. |
Fireflight Pack | Singleplayer | 07 August 2012 | 0.03% | 7 new weapons. |
Leviathan | Singleplayer | 28 August 2012 | 0.16% | (description needed) |
Retaliation | Multiplayer | 09 October 2012 | Free | New Faction with all new weapons & accoutrements. |
Groundside Resistance Pack | Singleplayer | 16 October 2012 | 0.03% | 2 new assault rifles, 2 pistols, and a harpoon gun. |
Alternate Appearance Pack 1 | Singleplayer | 20 November 2012 | 0.03% | New outfits for Garrus, Liara, & EDI, Shepard Cerberus Ajax Armor. |
Omega | Singleplayer | 27 November 2012 | 0.33% | (description needed) |
Reckoning | Singleplayer? | 24 February 2013 | Free | 7 new weapons, 5 new weapon mods, 2 new pcs of gear, and 6 new character kits. |
Citadel | Singleplayer | 05 March 2013 | 0.33% | Shore leave for the Normandy. |
I support DLC tables, and the above content in general (pricing as percentage excepted), however I prefer the List of Mass Effect 2 downloadable content format. Given the Mass Effect 3 DLC quantity, I support a separate List of Mass Effect 3 downloadable content article. – Conrad T. Pino ( talk) 02:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
How about MEHEM mod? http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/368/index/14795358 should be added to controversy 84.181.28.53 ( talk) 17:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
RudolfRed (
talk) 03:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC) You're invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Illusive Man#Request for comment.
czar
·
· 02:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The following sentence is taken from the Multiplayer section: "One year after game release, BioWare discontinued any further multiplayer challenges, while leave challenge system functional and servers up." While leave? I could be misunderstanding that sentence, but I think it contains an obvious grammatical error. 74.138.45.132 ( talk) 00:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest a separate article for the ending, and being not one to deny my likes I hereby suggest one. The ending is, for better or for worse, one of the more infamous endings in gaming. It's spawned mods, theorising (Indoctrination Theory, anyone?), harshly divided opinions, an infinite number of internet fights -- and ever so importantly, given those're hardly the most unique qualities, gained the attention of the media and all of this was noted and covered by numerous secondary sources. And not just small mentions, but long essays. In addition to the former we've got some production info on other ending ideas, BioWare defending it and then releasing an "Extended Cut", in turn leading to debates on artistic integrity and whether changing it is right, reviews on the new ending, plus people complaining that frankly all of this has been a bit overblown.
As far as articles go, this is probably a more unique one. Seen a lot of character articles, the occasional location article, but I can't really think of any other endings that get their own article; but Mass Effect 3's ending is a special case, notable separately from the main game. The coverage is there, and I think it's more than enough for a full article. The article'd be flame bait, I'm sure (though it's died down since), but what kind of encyclopedia would we be if we only covered topics that were easy? A quick look, thanks to the special VG Google searcher:
Kotaku seem to have had a field day with it. While not all of those sources may be usable together, there're undoubtedly more still. I know there's more on "Should they change it or not?" from my memory, and I recall coverage on the Indoctrination Theory, on the Happy Ending mod, on the Extended Cut, etc. – Bellum ( talk) ( contribs) 04:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOffline 23:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A statement is made in the article: "The U.S. Better Business Bureau also responded to the controversy, supporting claims by fans that BioWare falsely advertised the player's "complete" control over the game's final outcome."
This is only partially accurate. The statement was made by a single member of the Better Business Bureau in an opinion piece, originally located: http://www.bbb.org/blog/2012/04/mass-effect-3-is-having-a-mass-effect-on-its-consumers-for-better-or-worse/. The article phrasing implies that it is an official statement made by the BBB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.27.63 ( talk) 07:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the controversies section has a lot of undue weight to it, so I'm going to see about trimming it down a bit. The areas I think need consolidation.
JRT ( talk) 02:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've made a few edits, the two areas mentioned above, plus removed a few extra details of the Retake campaign (do we really need to know the flavors they were sent?). JRT ( talk) 02:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless there is a clear reason to doubt the source, I don't think you can revert the addition of sourced content without getting consensus first. Martijn Meijering ( talk) 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
So the term "fan reception" is described as being a more "neutral" term, but the fact is, not every video game or entertainment related article for that matter, have "fan reception" sections. Several of them of course, have "controversy" sections. That's when the ending controversy section of this article was called, "controversy." And it was quite a hot topic then. It's not talked about now but when the subject is brought up, there is no unanimous consensus about whether the extended cut did enough to ramify things. So I say, change the title of that section back to Controversy. Osh33m ( talk) 05:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Could this game be classified as open world? ECW28 ( talk) 08:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No. More like a "large corridors" game. 177.43.84.61 ( talk) 10:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mass Effect 3. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section has nothing to do with gameplay. SharkD Talk 08:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Mass Effect 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mass Effect 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/7352856/10When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Everyone,
For the past few months, I have been working on improving this article. As far as I can tell, the only section that still needs significant expansion is Reception, which I plan on tackling this weekend. However, all feedback is welcome. If anyone is willing to review the article and provide some informal takeaways, I would really appreciate it. Hopefully, we are close to a GA nomination. Thanks for your help!-- Ktmartell ( talk) 15:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AdrianGamer ( talk · contribs) 14:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The reception section needs a lot of work and all the sources mentioned need to be replaced, but the article as a whole is in great shape. AdrianGamer ( talk) 14:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the way the section is named is bad, but I believe "Controversy" is still the most sensible name to title the section. Are there any objections to changing it back to that? -- Osh33m ( talk) 18:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Good Afternoon Friends - In my opinion, the plot summary is in danger of becoming overly detailed. There are three clear trimming opportunities: [1] Character and lore descriptions should be moved to the "Character and setting" section. For example, the Citadel should not be described and explained within the plot summary because it is important enough to the setting to simply be in the "Character and setting" section. [2] Characters that relay information to Shepard do not need to be explicitly referenced. For example, singling out Traynor as tracking down Cerberus is not important enough to be included in a general plot summary. [3] Continual references to "Shepard and the crew" are not necessary. This is not how the summaries of ME1 and ME2 are worded. Simply saying "Shepard does this" or "Shepard does that" is usually fine, with some exceptions. Please let me know if anyone takes issue; otherwise, I will make these adjustments later in the week.-- Ktmartell ( talk) 17:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The game's teaser trailer was released at the Spike VGAs today. Synopsis on the article seems to reflect it. Not much more info than that though. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 01:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need a blow by blow description of the trailer? I've cut out the speculation in it but we really just need a source saying a teaser was released, and a very brief description of it. The whole contents of the trailer is not historically notable - and we cannot come to conclusions on it's overall relevance to the plot. Rehevkor ✉ 19:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need that huge description. Maybe just drop a line like you were saying in the development section. (ktmartell) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktmartell ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This may sound like a dumb question, but not everybody is from the US. If ME3 is release during "Holiday 2011", if I chose not to go on holiday in 2011, does this mean that it won't be released. Or, being as the first public holiday of 2011 is New Year's Day... you see where I'm going. Please change the term or at least add a description so that the rest of the world knows just what the hell you're on about here (like summer, autumn (fall), winter, christmas - it doesn't have to be exact but there are a lot of "holidays" - just need to narrow it down). Angry Mustelid ( talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I live in Argentina, and holidays here, are on summer (December). As a kid, I lived in UK, and holidays there, are also in December; June. Why do you suppose a north-american company would mean Q4 by saying holiday - holiday=December only in the southern hemisphere. I read the above discussion, but you're just *clarifying* what you think they mean; is there no official announcement that's a bit more specific? HuGo_87 ( talk) 06:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
134.243.210.54 (
talk) 02:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow I cannot believe someone thought that this was worth arguing about. Yes I realize that when they say "Holiday Season" the wording may be confusing to people that use the word "holiday" to mean something akin to taking time off or going on a trip. But seriously did you think that they were going to release the game when you personally took time off to take a trip? It isn't like the people at BioWare are sitting their wiating for you to take a vacation to give you the option to buy a game. I think you are an angry little person who feels that any "North American" company who does world wide business should use the vocabulary that your home country uses. Well guess what they aren't and you perfectly well knew what they meant so stop trying to make a point when there is not one to make. Sure they should use the terms "Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4" but many people wouldn't understand those and would be here complaining that they should use terms like "Holiday Season".
-JA88ERW0CK
Hi all. Any Mass Effect fan worth his salt would know that the series was originally planned as a trilogy, and this may very well still be the case, but as of now, there is still a possibility that Bioware may expand the franchise further and create more games, as speculated by this site: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2010/12/13/mass-effect-3-announced/1 While one has reason to be skeptical, the mentioned site is just one of the many places where it is said that the Mass Effect 3 might just 'not' be the final game. For this reason, i believe it would be more suitable for the article to have a reference to this alongside the mention of it being the 'final' game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.50.221 ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys. I think a development section where Casey Hudson's comments and some information about the trailer could be put would be a very useful tool. We could also put something in about the recent announcement of the game's score-composer, who I do not know the name of off the top of my head but who is apparently an Academy Award-Winner.
Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.8.181 ( talk) 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: I went ahead and made the changes I was thinking about, although it made the introduction a little bare. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.8.181 ( talk) 20:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Here are the sources. Jack wall's forum post: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/5987442/10#5991831 Jack Wall's tweet: http://twitter.com/#!/WALLofSOUND/status/35746918587961345 Sam Hulick's tweet: http://twitter.com/#!/SamHulick/status/35697479852756992 Sam hulick's facebook profile: http://www.facebook.com/#!/samhulick
194.78.37.122 ( talk) 21:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I took all the information and organized it into sections based around what is present in the Ocarina of Time article, which is a featured article.
I also deleted some information that was getting repetitive. For example, I know there is a Release section, but there is no reason for the release date to repeated three or four times.
Finally, I made sure titles were formatted the same way. All titles are now formatted in italics, as opposed to some being in italics and some being bold. We need to come to a consensus on this! :D
Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktmartell ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this isn't the right place to ask, but aren't the Reapers coming to destroy the intelligent races of the Milky Way who utilize Mass Relays and Mass Effect technologies?
They'd probably go for humans first, but I doubt they'd stop there. 67.194.184.86 ( talk) 10:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I know that ME2 on PS3 used the "Mass Effect 3 engine", yet the visuals looked exactly the same. Is the ME3 engine the same as Unreal Engine 3.5? TehMissingLink Talk 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Odds are its the xbox i swear i saw at on bioware's site and oh no need to worry it isnt forum posts but im haveing trouble finding a link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.172.248 ( talk) 09:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to Gamestop, the release date for Mass Effect 3 is 11/9/2011
Naseeg915 ( talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
please update the release info box. PAL/Europe release date is 09.03.2012. source: http://masseffect.bioware.com/me3/game/biowaretv/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanI ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kinect support in ME3 is a big deal. What do you guys think is the best way to approach writing about it? Should it have it's owen sub-header? Should it only be mentioned briefly where relevant? Ktmartell ( talk) 01:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought it's been widely confirmed that this will be an action game as opposed to a role playing game.
Think the movie Aliens switching it's genre from Alien's Horror genre Sticka ( talk) 21:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Mass Effect 3 is not being released worldwide on March 6 2012. It is scheduled for release on March 6 2012 and March 9 2012 for US and EU respectively. There are multiple sources, and many online retailers have the correct release dates stated.
Source 1: http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/06/09/mass-effect-3-live-action-trailer/
Source 2: http://thegamershub.net/2011/06/mass-effect-3-fall-of-earth-e3-2011-trailer/
Retailer:
US: http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Effect-3-PC-DVD/dp/B004FYEZMQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8
EU: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mass-Effect-3-PC-DVD/dp/B004T8C20U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8
North America on the 6th, not just the US.
While that really only emcompasses one or two other countries, its still important to note.
I doubt it's really an issue for anyone else, but I think that saying, "then there will be two love interests vying for Shepard's attention," is a little bit vague...can it be changed to "then both previous love interests will be vying for Shepard's attention,"?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHopeThisNameWorks ( talk • contribs) 05:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably best to resolve this once and for all. So, any thoughts on how to refer to Shepard with pronouns? Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, due to a single editor's edit a few months ago, refer to Shepard with as few pronouns as possible, resulting in a lot of "Shepard did this... and then Shepard did that." with a few "him or her"s sprinkled in. I personally would just prefer to refer to Shepard as a "he", since he's usually depicted as male. It makes it easier to read, so we can use both Shepard and "he", instead of "he or she", which breaks the flow a bit. Thoughts? Gary King ( talk · scripts) 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello! There is a thing you should add to this article. The player is able to pick up weapons that enemies have drop apon theire death. This is a new feature to the series. Blackjohnbird ( talk) 01:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
This may have been false information, unless it was omitted from the demo, because the feature was not present in the ME3 Demo. Kastrenzo ( talk) 00:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well then what's this about?
The article's quality ratings have started to dip a little. What needs to be improved specifically? Ktmartell ( talk) 22:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The article has a lot of information in Development and Marketing, but I'm not sure everything is in the right place. For example, the Development section talks a lot about the game's trailers and it being shown off at video game conferences. Are these pieces of developmental information, or marketing information? Ktmartell ( talk) 18:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
"By purchasing copies of Battlefield 3, players will receive a Mass Effect 3 online pass" You do not get a Mass Effect 3 Online Pass from Battlefield 3, you get a Battlefield 3 Online Pass which grants early access to the multiplayer demo of Mass Effect 3. EasilyLost ( talk) 14:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is corporate shenanigans. There aren't 1000 actual variables, only about 50. The other '950 variables' they refer to are minor and unrelated story choices. Basically, BioWare is making it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.58.64 ( talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
134.243.210.54 ( talk) 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC) While you are probably right that some of the choices made will not have a hand in how the game ends, like the pointless quest to get a fish and tell the Krogans that it came from the Prosiduim will probably not have an effect. But where did you come up with the number of 50 choices? Was there an article or website that states that?
134.243.210.54 ( talk) 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)JA88ERW0CK
Could you add the PEGI rating? It's 18. You can verify this on any game website (such as game.co.uk) or the official website itself (if you start watching a trailer it shows you the rating, not sure if there's any other way to find it on their site, didn't check too deeply). Lord-Schmee ( talk) 20:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
“Yes, is required for all PC editions of Mass Effect 3, physical or digital.” To play Mass Effect 3 PC users must install the program known as "Origin" on their computers. Rendering them vulnerable to EA's brand of corporate espionage unless they “opt-out of Mass Effect 3 data collection from inside the game.”.
Furtled ( talk) 23:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Not exactly neutral POV there, I'll add the basic info but without the editorialising.
I don't see how is does not constitute corporate espionage. In Germany Origin has been banned because of how invasive it is, it was proven to even be able to access people's tax files on their computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.97.180 ( talk) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I read the bit "Gameplay in the multiplayer mode will only allow for players to carry two guns at a time in their inventory ... weapons will be changed by holding down a button" and thought it sounded odd. I checked the source site and it looks like it's a Video Game site. Might need to be amended for PC players. 118.208.177.8 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC).
Do we really need to give background information in the plot section? Ktmartell ( talk) 20:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering what the wider love interests mentioned by Casey Hudson entail. Gay content's already been mentioned what else? Wider means new so multiple partners, pederastry (legal?) what?
I'm assuming celibacy is still a legitimate option to pursue but that there's no way to avoid surprises? I got a shock in Skyrim when I realised the male blacksmith was coming onto my chap. 118.208.50.217 ( talk) 10:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not true that Shepard dies in all endings. If he destroys the reapers and has a high enough effective military strength, then he lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.36.184.105 ( talk) 04:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, only another 22 seconds to explain Shepard alive. But do you think we shouldn't deserve more than 22 seconds? and this 22 seconds and the different ending have about 5% different only. Here is Jeremy say that is not Shepard is Easter Egg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H_A7SeawU4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.93.58 ( talk) 14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This section needs a point about the popular Indoctrination Theory - as explained here on IGN http://www.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Indoctrination_Theory User:RussianSpy27 ( talk) 11:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A bunch of so-called internet trolls decided to give a game a bad grade on metacritic, I'm guessing because of the day one dlc... Therefore, I think that when the "Ratings" section is written, only official, gamer magazine ratings should be written there, because there can't be a normal user rating because of the aforementioned trolls.
-- 94.253.201.207 ( talk) 08:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well for the record did you actually read the User reviews. Unlike MW3 which was essentially zeros because we like BF3, these were well thought out. Including the awful endings, the fact that choices from the previous games affected nothing (except who is still alive), the pandering to homosexuals, and the poor writing. Not arguing for or against inclunsion, just saying actually read the reviews, because they are well thought out and bring up very good points. Superbowlbound ( talk) 15:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I haven't read them because I don't want to spoil the game for myself. However, I don't hate homosexuals and believe everyone should be able to enjoy the game regardless of their sexual orientation. I do hope that the game isn't as bad as people say it is, because I don't think it would get such good ratings from Xbox magazines, etc., and because I liked Mass Effect 2. -- 94.253.201.207 ( talk) 19:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It is on 500 hundred negatives and counting, just not "some trolls". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.155.183 ( talk) 06:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Could somebody put up some info about the DRM used in this game? My purchase decision depends on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.83.1.251 ( talk) 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3 Perhaps sum1 with the authority could add it to the article, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.180.171 ( talk) 21:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Some information should be given about the Arrival DLC, everybody did not buy & play it, that DLC is leads to the beggining of Mass Effect 3, we should atleast add that what kind of a crime Shepard committed that he was being held for Trail on Earth at the start of Mass Effect 3. Some of this information was on the article Mass Effect 2 but it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.201.160 ( talk) 22:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
we need more detail in the plot section is that ok with everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that there seems to be an "Edit War" movement by some angered fans.
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9772095
Whether you agree or disagree with their opinions, I don't think we should let people with agendas write a NPOV article, and I think we need to take some care here. I dislike WP being used to "mount opinion campaigns" as it ruins objectivity. I'm not sure this is a relevant controversy right now, so we need to take a close look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRTroy ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/10/the-problem-with-biowares-mass-effect-3-day-one-dlc-from-ashes/ http://social.bioware.com/633606/polls/28989/ http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9512916/729 comment added by Sid ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Typically I am all for waiting but something should be said sooner rather than later regarding the fan backlash because it has already been mentioned on multiple prominent gaming media sites and the article in its current state displays universal praise when there is in fact a dichotomy of opinion between critics and fans. While I know fan reception of videogames isn't typically mentioned on wikipedia articles, I believe the attention it has garnered from the mainstream gaming media warrants its inclusion in order to maintain neutrality. The longer this waits, the longer the article is one sided towards the mainstream critics' reception instead of universal reception. http://www.gamespot.com/features/why-do-you-hate-mass-effect-3-6365175/ http://egamer.co.za/2012/03/mass-effect-3-suffers-massive-user-backlash/ http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/10810.html http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/03/06/mass-effect-3-backlash-why-gamers-should-be-ashamed/ Redredryder ( talk) 06:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm okay with how it is currently written, though I don't know if that's just part of an edit war. You can't call it balanced and write about universal praise when multiple sources clearly indicate a backlash within the game's community. Redredryder ( talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I would humbly suggest, that since the ending controversy has progressed beyond the gaming media, and is now playing out in the mass media (the BBC for one) that this section warrants expansion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17458208 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.28.82 ( talk) 18:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think there should be an addition to the reception section involving Bioware's handling of game content. Specifically one of the characters in the game Tali'Zorah. One of the bigger reveals of this final game was supposed to be the unmasking of Tali'zorah, a character famous for dawning a helmet and never showing her face. The reveal involved an in game picture showing her with her helmet. The problem was the image used was taken from a stock photo company. This issue has been controversial among fans due to the fact they couldn't even take the time to model an appropriate face model for such a moment. They took two games of build up and decided to end it with a google search and a quick photoshop.
Basically I think there should just be an addition that says the following.
"Fans declared backlash upon discovering stock photos were used in the unmasking of character Tali'Zorah"
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116202-BioWare-Uses-Stock-Photo-for-Tali-in-Mass-Effect-3
Bigbuddhabelly ( talk) 16:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Also this : http://crystalprisonzone.blogspot.in/2012/03/bioware-day-one-dlc-developed.html?m=1,http://geek.pikimal.com/2012/03/08/mass-effect-3s-from-ashes-is-disc-locked/ DLC character is already on the disc and buyers have payed double
Some guy's blog is not a WP:RS. Find a reliable source, then we can discuss if it merits inclusion. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 17:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
You see these things will never be out officially on reliable sources. I know the chances of my request happening are next to nil so its up to u to take it or leave it. I got 2 more source http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Mass-Effect-3-Day-One-DLC-Was-Disc-All-40298.html http://www.bagogames.com/mass-effect-3-downloadable-content-disk/
http://www.destructoid.com/did-bioware-lie-about-mass-effect-3-s-day-one-dlc--223448.phtml
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/11/new-video-shows-mass-effect-3-day-one-dlc-already-on-disc/ is the best proof The DLC was already on the standard disc and people have paid double to download 600 mb of data which the company claimed was the DLC. The article has proof that the DLC is already on the standard edition and people have been tricked into buying the digital/collectors edition.
What more proof do you want ? Aren't forbes and game magazines valid enough ? I, as a part of the consumer base, want to highlight certain controversies that aren't good and yet I get the feeling that I'm being tossed around.Is it really your intention to edit the article or am I just being asked to foolishly run errands to collect "reliable" evidence ?
Also i want to post a review link that contains the truth instead of the glowing reviews. http://gamingshogun.com/2012/03/09/mass-effect-3-leaves-me-angry-a-review-pc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid ( talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sid (
talk) 17:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Sid ( talk) 17:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding Sid comment added by Sid ( talk)
Not done: Like swarm said, please be specific about what you want to add and provide reliable sources. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Answered set to no because the user did as requested but this has been ignored. I am interested in how this will play out.
89.166.239.7 (
talk) 12:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This article definitely needs a section for the various controversies associated with the title at this point, primarily the whole day 1 Prothean DLC affair. Dragon Age II had such a section, the major difference being that while most of the DA2 controversies were disproven or resolved, the opposite is happening here, as it has now turned out that BioWare have blatantly lied to their customers about the DLC being on the disc ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRRpGlmtws8 - I know this isn't good enough for an article source, but it shows us editors what's up). I spent a good few weeks undoing the work of trolls and arguing against the controversy section in the DA2 article (because most of them were indeed resolved), but even I will gladly admit that one is needed here. I propose people start saving the various articles about the controversy from reliable gaming media sites and gather them here so we can write up a proper, well-sourced and NPOV controversy segment for the article. -- Smoochiekins ( talk) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The supposed 'severity' of any controversy is too early to tell anyway. I still, for the life of me, do not understand everyone's rush. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 11:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand the rush in selectively rehashing glowing reviews and opinions either. Has wikipedia succumbed to EA's influence? 89.166.239.7 ( talk) 12:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change the generally positive reviews in reception to critical acclaim. Currently it is the highest rated video game of 2012
Sjay1994 ( talk) 04:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. There seem to be enough quoted "criticisms" in the Reception section, such as "fails to stand up as its own game in the same manner as its predecessors" and "...the end of the series is a mixed bag. Satisfying in some ways, nonsensical in others, and ultimately too simple" to make "generally positive" a pretty fair assessment at the moment, imo.
Begoon
talk 05:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
While checking out this game's reviews I came across something not totally unexpected; namely that while professional critics overwhelmingly gave ME3 a great review, the user rating has not been so great. Currently the reception section is quite glowing because it is based purely on professional critic sources, so I'm proposing that we use the metacritic user rating as a source of parity. Can we use user ratings from sites like metacritic or are they consider to be equivalent to online surveys? Saedon ( talk) 10:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I see where you both are coming from and it does make sense to apply the user-generated content rule to Metacritic as well. In line with the requirements explained, how about this then: 'User feedback on Metacritic has been generally unfavourable and allegations of preferential treatment by means of deleting profane reviews (unlike Modern Warfare 3) have been dismissed by Metacritic'. 89.166.239.7 ( talk) 15:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/06/metacritic-deleting-mass-effect-3-user-reviews/
Personally I think that the existance of negative viewer reviews should be mentioned. Failing to do that is in my opinion taking sides and objective. ( talk) 22 March 2012
As reported here, here and here, the multiplayer has a huge bug connected with user profile and his progress. There also many another bugs, look at the bioware forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.188.36.16 ( talk) 01:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Many players are unable to carry over their custom appearances from the early games, with little response from EA and Bioware, and are unwilling to play singleplayer until the problem is fixed, with many opting to return the game rather than play without the custom face they've played throughout the series. Can someone add the character face import issue to reception? Limited explanation from EA of the problem: https://help.ea.com/article/cannot-import-save-game-for-mass-effect-3-on-x360 News coverage: http://kotaku.com/5890793/oh-dear-mass-effect-3s-character-import-isnt-working-properly There is also a poll up on Bioware forums with nearly 1000 votes of disappointment over the issue: http://social.bioware.com/1317520/polls/29029/
and the main thread is up to more than 160 pages:
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/9661093/163 203.206.176.7 ( talk) 03:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the Retake Mass Effect charity drive would be worth mentioning under Reception. Fans angry about the ending raise over $50k for kids in hospitals. Anyone else think that this is pretty significant?
http://retakemasseffect.chipin.com/retake-mass-effect-childs-play Redredryder ( talk) 06:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree, the controversy for this far exceeds that of Dragonage 2 which has already set a precedent for including a controversy heading. Bioware have also officially acknowledge the fan outrage through several sources (Twitter, Bioware Forum and interviews with Gaming websites). However I'm not sure if any one of them fit the criteria to be used as a source for Wikipedia. This will be difficult to address because the fan outrage has been mainly through social media and hence the Bioware response has been through social media. Do we ignore this real phenomena on Wikipedia simply because it doesn't meet the prescribed standards of a source? I vote we don't ignore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.80.9 ( talk) 07:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The big reason we are slow to edit here is for the following reasons.
And I will probably add these myself sometime next week--but keep in mind, there is no rush to discuss these--the only rush IMO would be from people trying to use the articles to promote a campaign or POV. We don't have to add breaking news to an article every hour, unless it involves some major world event.
JRT ( talk) 00:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The links I mentioned above come primarily from the same professional gaming sites whose reviews we added to this article within an hour of being published. Reviews from professional critics alone do not define how a game is received, yet why was there no wait to write a Reception section, which now has been woefully unbalanced for the past week and a half and has essentially been promoting the game despite numerous criticisms (which have been picked up by the media)? The point of mentioning the charity [14] isn't to promote it, but because it was formed in protest to the controversial ending and has received significant coverage. If we are going to claim we need to wait, then we should wait a week or two from the release date of games before writing ANYTHING about how it was received. We shouldn't rush to write a paragraph an hour after critic reviews are published and assume their views are universal. Redredryder ( talk) 08:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Redredryder. Referencing the charity drive and highlighting the particular controversies is not the same as picking a side. It is entirely appropriate that this controversy should be pointed out, with the reader being able to form their own opinions. To my mind the the charity drive in and of itself is very significant and possibly unprecedented in gaming history. I can't see any reason for this not be included even in 10 years. That being said I do think it would be wise to perhaps exercise some patience and approach this impartially without advocating one side or another. However it shouldn't be whitewashed as the controversy has been highlighted in many media sites that are now referenced as sources in this article. 123.2.80.9 ( talk) 10:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
"The game's ending has been controversial with some fans." This statement and the fact that this huge controversy is given only two lines is an outright breach of NPV. The polls have shown more than 89% feel the endings were starkly lacking, that's not "some". Also the basis upon which the objections are being raised are serious, some wanting to officially complain that Bioware failed to live up to explicit promise of its statements: "player's decision throughout the game will dictate the outcome". I don't think we have to mention everything like it's a news website, but diluting what is going on with weasel words is hardly informational. WHat they decide to do about it can remain for later, but for now we should be fair and publish references to all the social and media websites that blasted the game's ending so hard. 175.139.2.246 ( talk) 18:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Now even BBC has acknowledged it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17444719 Perhaps it's time to expand on the ending controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.180.171 ( talk) 14:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Should we address the issues relating to visual disabilities and various aspects of the Mass Effect 3 ending? Red and Blue are imperceptible to some with color blindness. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001997/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathonm ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
@Redredryder - Excuse me? My concern was legitimate; I wasn't clear on the policy and Dbrodbeck clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by —Johnathonm
The controversy over the game's ending is definitely notable enough for it to be its own section or subsection within the article. Several major news outlets have covered this, and eventually Bioware relented to actually change the ending. Some news sites to support this:
Note that the colors mentioned for your choices are not in the correct order. "Destroy" is red, "Control" is blue, "Synthesize" Is green. CGorky ( talk) 05:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
At what point does this theory become a point for inclusion in this article? Forbes has already seemingly legitimised it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/03/21/did-the-real-mass-effect-3-ending-go-over-everyones-heads/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/03/21/mass-effect-3-ending-the-indoctrination-theory-is-the-easy-way-out/
Is it simply a case of wait and see if BioWare adds it to the story officially or can it be added to the reception section along with the rest of the fan controversy?-- FLStyle ( talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it is because I am not familiar with the rules here, but after I view the credit list from the the game's soundtrack, I want to ask why Clint Mansell, who only composed 1.5 piece of music, is the only one showing in the "Composer(s)" section while all other composers that contributed more than Mr. Mansell are hidden. Is it suppose to be like that? Eno TALK 19:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The reception section of the article contains some good information about the disgruntled fans of the series in regards to the ending and the charity drive they did. It's been deleted which is stupid. Wikipedia contains relevant information about subjects. The ending of a 3 game plot arc and it's reception among fans is relevant. It isn't on the fringes, it isn't rare or even uncommon. Go to any comment section in a news article about it, any video of the trailers released, and you'll see a lot of disgruntled fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.14.49 ( talk) 03:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
the following is factually inaccurate
"The game will include mini-games and Hammerhead and Mako missions"
No minigames or vechicles section appear in the game so the above text should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 ( talk) 16:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Done. SG 2090 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This entire article reads like it was written by a BioWare/EA PR Representative. There are countless points throughout where it reads as though BioWaremaremthe greatest of all video game developers because of all of the amazing things they supposedly do (that don't even deserve to be in the article). Somebody needs to go over this with a fine toothed comb to get rid of all of the fluff that promotes BioWare. I was under the impression that Wikipedia exists to give an unbiased view of things, but this here is even more biased than articles I've seen with the bias banner, and nobody seems to care here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.177.193 ( talk) 00:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong biased about the article, it tells us about the things that the developers added in the game compared to its prequels, it tells us about the DLCs, Release, Promotion, Development and the Plot of the game. As far as the Reception section goes then it is very clear the game has received CRITICAL ACCLAIM, the game's metascore for all versions proves that, even the user reception for the game as a whole, apart from the ending, has been generally favorable (apart from metacritic users). I don't think this article has been written by a Representative of EA or Bioware. Calling a game that has been heavy praised by the critics, a critically acclaimed game and saying how much various critics have praised it, is not biased on anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.182.76 ( talk) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
When the crucible AI says that creators of organic beings are doomed to be killed by their own creations, it could be a reference Starcraft, as the Xel'Naga (creators of a organic race, Zerg) were killed and made extinct from their own creations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.210.111 ( talk) 21:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The writing of the DLC section is abominable; it's not laid out well, and the sentence structure makes no sense in some places. It should be incredibly simple to tidy it up a bit without needing to change any of the sources. -- Wordwyrm ( talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Also the title of the DLC "From Ashes" is written as "In Ashes". -- ChoephiX ( talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Under the Reception subsection I believe the first sentence in regards to IGN's review should be removed. The reason being an IGN journalist, Jessica Chobot, modeled and voiced a character for the game. While she did not write IGN's review for the game, her status as an IGN personality and appearance in the game nevertheless compromises the journalistic integrity of the review. Chobot is mentioned in the article but her affiliation is not. In an effort to maintain neutrality, I do not see why the IGN review should be allowed without mention of Chobot as an IGN employee. http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Diana_Allers Redredryder ( talk) 01:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
IGN published an extremely positive review for a game that contains the likeness and voice of one of their personalities (She plays a journalistic character not unlike her role in real life for IGN). Whether or not the score of the review is justified is irrelevant. However, knowing that their review of the game will influence sales on at least some level, IGN has a monetary incentive to give high marks because success of the game will lead to more exposure to Chobot and in turn their own site. The point is Wikipedia is setting a dangerous precedent if IGN's review is considered credible. Particularly suspicious is that it is the very first review mentioned if one reads the Reception subsection. At the very least the conflict of interest should be mentioned. Redredryder ( talk) 04:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see how this falls under original research and not verifiability. It's a conflict of interest with IGN and Bioware. If the reviewer wrote the same review for a different company I would have no problem with the review. When an employee of IGN works on the game in question and IGN subsequently publishes a review of that game, then IGN as a source becomes conflicted. See WP:QS Redredryder ( talk) 19:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
To protect out integrity, we should mention that IGN could be serving their own interests by giving the game a particularly high rating then. The fact that a member of IGN has personal stakes in the game's success is noteworthy. This is an encyclopaedia, not a PR site. 89.166.239.7 ( talk) 12:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
IGN is a popular video game review source. The score of 9.5 is only slightly better than the average Mass Effect 3 reviews. If IGN gave a review a lot higher than the other publishers, then you could leave IGN out of it, or even mention the connection. However it's review of the game contains criticism and gives a lower score than several other review sources. IGN is a big company, it's parent News Corp is even larger. If you delved deep enough you could probably find similar relationships between employees/subsidiaries/families/friends and video games. Crzyclarks ( talk) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Can't help but think there should be at least a mention on the indoctrination theory, it's a huge bone of contention with fans online and has a massive community creating a very strong argument for the ending being a hoax leading to unprecedented levels of hype for the downloadable epilogue. Members of Bioware haven't confirmed or denied it as such, but they've said that fan response wouldn't be anywhere near as angry if they knew what was coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.61.230 ( talk) 00:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section
Controversy, there's a {{
fact}}
tagged on the first sentence,
This seems unjustified in the face of multiple sources in the same paragraph which easily back up that straightforward assertion. Imho the {{
fact}}
tag should be removed. Maintenance tags should not be used for POV purposes like this. If anyone has any serious doubts as to the quoted statement's validity, feel very free to remove the statement. Don't slap a fact tag on it because you don't like that it's true. Sorry for rambling, --
195.14.199.196 (
talk) 07:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the reference to the Better Business Bureau in the Controversy section should be removed. It was not the BBB as a whole but one member making a blog post. In addition, the reasons cited on the blog post as for why the author felt that the game was falsely advertised are demonstrably incorrect. CaiusRagnarok ( talk) 18:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The User Score on Metacritic is currently 4.9 - that should be mentioned. I don't think it's sensible to rely on the professional critics to gauge the response to games, especially to the ones released by megacorps. The gaming press and the giant publishers have a very close relationship. Websites like IGN and Gamespot rely on the big publisher's advertiser bucks for most of their funds, and the few print mags rely on them to stay competitive. They aren't impartial. I'm not saying that the articles shouldn't mention them, but now that sites like Metacritic allow us to gauge the reactions of people who don't rely on EA to pay the rent, there's no excuse for ignoring them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.102.29 ( talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with citing aggregate reviews from IMDb or Metacritic. Citing them on an individual basis may be more problematic, but I'm referring to the aggregate here. Why wouldn't this be allowed? — SMAP ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Dbrodbeck that is ridiculous and you know it. "Professional" reviews give this game an astounding 90/100 across the board. Individual reviewers in aggregate (on amazon.com) give this game a failing grade of 50/100. Ask yourself this question: Which is more reliable? The one written by gaming magazines who are paid by advertisements from the game companies or the actual players of the game. Wikipedia is full of itself if it doesn't think aggregate user reviews are worthwhile! SMAP ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we need to include the Metacritic scores. We have a whole section on controversy that covers how outraged fans are, and it's cited by reliable sources. I understand being upset, but we can't do any more than we already have unless it's covered by reliable media outlets. -- Teancum ( talk) 00:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I know we have spoken about this before, but I don't think we ever resolved the issue. Do we really need to say "his/her" everytime we talk about Shepard? It reads horribly. Ktmartell ( talk) 21:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I know that most will disagree with me, but I think option one is best. Using "his" makes sense because the male Shepard is primarily used in marketing and most people use the male Shepard. As long as people know that a female option is available, I think using "his" is the cleanest way to do it. Ktmartell ( talk) 21:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Can we change the beginning of the controversy section from "endings have" to "ending has?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.215.8 ( talk) 23:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Since the page is locked, I'm just leaving a suggestion here; it really should either be better written or deleted. It really comes off as a lot of hearsay as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.39.34 ( talk) 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It needs to be deleted. It's 99% opinion and sources nothing.-- 68.1.111.29 ( talk) 01:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I feel that the controversy section should at least show the level of fan opinion in some way. Perhaps with a link to the poll where 70k votes have been cast? http://social.bioware.com/633606/polls/28989/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.28.82 ( talk) 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think, that in article should be also mentioned controversy of Extended Cut DLC as its reception was really mixed. Robin WH ( talk) 10:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Robin - the current state of the article seems to suggest the new expanded ending put to rest all concerns, but it certainly has not. It merely fleshes out the original ending without changing, replacing, or fully addressing some of the most fundamental issues. 24.86.240.116 ( talk) 03:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the controversy over the ending has overshadowed the lesser but still significant fan outrage over the inability for the most dedicated fans of the series to play as 'their' custom Shepard. I'm talking about the facial import issues for those who had created a custom Shepard in ME1. This issue, like the ending, was a matter of reneging on a major advertised gameplay feature, or at least a promise that Bioware failed to live up to. The whole vaunted unique feature of this trilogy of RPG's was that we were told from the beginning that the games linked together to tell one epic story, and we could play as our own custom version of the hero/heroine through the entire saga, with the consequences of our decisions carrying over through the entire story - er, except to the big finale, apparently... most of the longest-standing fans of the series had waiting breathlessly for this game to release, only to be immediately faced with frustration and disappointment. The only thing that prevented even more of an outcry was that many players didn't start with ME1. Bioware did eventually fix the issue a few months later, but that was far too late to help anyone who had eagerly bought the game at launch, especially given that there was no assurance of if or when a patch would be made available. I request that this matter be given a mention under 'reception' (this was less a matter of opinion than the ending, yet it was more than just a bug) or in a unique section/sub-section, perhaps titled, 'import issue', or 'customization problem'
24.86.240.116 (
talk) 03:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The Metacritic user rating was quite bad for ME3, maybe someone could add this to the reception section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoopidCity ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, so what you would consider NO BIAS is from a company that gets ad revenue from the product they're reviewing right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.37.103 ( talk) 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
How's this for a source that the ending and game was panned? http://www.ign.com/blogs/goldenadamas/2012/03/09/how-mass-effect-3-free-additional-dlc-endings-can-redeem-the-trilogy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperBlade ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we add the information about, that some mass effect fans theorize that Shepard is indoctrinated, and that the only way to break free is to choose the "Destroy Ending". ( Grim Sparky ( talk) 03:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
Personally, I think user reviews should only be mentioned if they're covered in reliable sources. While there are issues with professional critics of any calibre (" this gets my lowest rating ever: seven thumbs up."), they nevertheless are experts. User reviews also don't touch on aspects of the game, as evidenced by the hundreds of people who hated Modern Warfare 3 so much they evidently spent $200 to give it a negative review on three different platforms. Sceptre ( talk) 23:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Should there be mention here of the building negative reaction to EA supplying only some pre-order bonus codes for the AT-12 Raider Shotgun DLC to select customers despite repeated assurances from Chris Priestly and advertising that it would be provided to all pre-orders placed on their Origin service? Some users are even complaining that they did not receive their channel-wide offer of the M-55 Argus Assault Rifle. Many threads on BioWare Social Network were created discussing the shortage, and the YouTube clip advertising the shotgun has recently been hit with a few (<200) vocal dislikes. There is also a rumor which seems to be floating around that the DLC was offered as PC only, based mostly on EA Customer Service representatives saying they could not find the codes for consoles. Despite this, the complaint of unsent items has been expressed by PC and console users alike. I've been looking but haven't found an official source for either side of this issue yet. 70.75.89.120 ( talk) 08:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. 'Generally unfavourable user reception (3.5)' should be added. Who are we to dismiss 1,700 voices? Let's stay objective please. The number is relevant. Unless wikipedia wants to support its own positive opinion of this game, user reception should be reported if we use Metacritic.
And secondly point brought up against Metacritic user evaluation can also be applied to magazine reviews. Who are we to say users go with the flow but magazines don't? Let's be real and add the information. 89.166.239.7 ( talk) 12:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
'Metacritic rants' is a PR term, the entire paragraph here is invalid and biased from the outset. We shouldn't use it. Say it as it is instead: we will not use 1,700 user reviews to taint fanboys' love of the game (I liked the game as well but negative opinions should be allowed a mention as well since praise of the game was not unanimous at all. No one is asking to delete magazine opinion or favour the 'rants'. 89.166.239.7 ( talk) 12:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Reliability of the user score in judging the quality of the game itself is not what should concern us. An encyclopedia should report the major facts relevant to the topic of the article. The metacritic score is a major fact relevant to the topic. A reader should judge for themselves whether the metacritic score judges the quality of the game reliably. The source of the fact itself (metacritic score), however, is reliable. It is our job to be objective and neutral and to keep facts about the game in one place. Some of us may disagree that the game is bad, others may agree. But we should report the average user reception nontheless. This is not the same as reporting individual opinions (and even this is OK in the case when the individual is high profile). This article is not an advertisement for the game. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USERGENERATED#Statements_of_opinion . It is written clearly that statements of opinion are allowed as long as they are not self-published, written by bloggers or so. I.e., metacritic user scores qualify. So I am putting the information back. Please do not remove it unilaterally. Meznaric ( talk) 18:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, the fact that another article does something is not a valid reason to do it here. The nature of Wikipedia means that any/all articles may contain things that are against policy - the fact that something is there only proves that no-one has deleted it (yet), not that it is acceptable. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ( talk) 18:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd disagree with adding the Metacritic scores. The game was bombed with negative reviews before it even came out. Many of the low Metacritic scores are based on reaction to specific controversial elements rather than the game as a whole: the ending, homosexual relationship, Diane Allers, day one DLC. In this case, Metacritic information is unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaiusRagnarok ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Controversy" section, the following is stated:
"One of the writers of the Mass Effect series, Patrick Weekes, revealed that executive producer Cassy Hudson locked him and the other writers out of production of the ending."
This should be changed to reflect the considerable doubt over the true authorship of the post attributed to Patrick Weekes. Here is my suggested change:
"One of the writers of the Mass Effect series, Patrick Weekes, revealed that executive producer Cassy Hudson locked him and the other writers out of production of the ending. However, the post attributed to Weekes was quickly removed and it is not clear whether the information was genuine or posted by someone pretending to be Weekes."
Sources: http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/ http://www.gamefront.com/did-a-mass-effect-3-writer-slam-the-ending/ Redfive27 ( talk) 17:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Mdann52 (
talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)I'm confused about the statement "the game...marks the final chapter in the Mass Effect trilogy of video games, completing the story of Commander Shepard" - the "sources" for this is a blog post, and a [i]forums[/i] post (of all things...). That's some pretty low standards. I don't see any mention of anything from Bioware or EA.
Instead, in the "best" ending, after the story is over you get a dialogue with the following, as can be watched here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6v3PK88ZOM (just search youtube for "mass effect stargazer")
How can one read that and not think there will be another installment? And why on earth is a forum post considered a source for whether or not this is the final game in the series, especially given the actual in-game content that contradicts such low-quality sources? I see nothing from EA/Bioware that suggests that the franchise is done. Shepard took in a breath if you "won" the game (which was very hard to do). Shepard isn't dead, Stargazer says there's another story. Is that not good enough against a forums post? Brianlamere ( talk) 17:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Can we put EA's criticism for including gay characters in Mass Effect 3? They did the same thing with Star Wars: The Old Republic. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/09/ea-fights-back-against-anti-gay-boycott-with-help-from-stephen-fry-and-yoda/ Lacon432 ( talk) 14:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
There has been some information about the Wii U version by Bioware on the official BioWare blog and at the EA 2012 Summer Showcase. The Wii U version will have some DLC present on the disk including The Extended Cut (which will be the default ending for this version) and will also include some backstory DLC that will allow players to make decisions from Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. It was mentioned that the game will have the original backstory DLC "Mass Effect: Genesis" to make decisions from Mass Effect and an additional one for Mass Effect 2 with details and a name yet to be announced. The Wii U version will have gameplay mechanics that are different to the other versions, such as using the Wii U Gamepad to give Shepard's squad members, thier orders in regards to powers and weapon changes without having to pause the game to do so. It will also allow players to see a map of thier surroundings with squad members and eniemes highlighted. The Wii U version has been confirmed by EA that it will be a launch title for the console. B.Jones 11:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill407 ( talk • contribs)
Bioware co-founders Dr. Zeschuk & Dr. Muzyka retired from Bioware in September 2012 but stated they made their decision to retire in April 2012, placing that decision during the height of the controversy. source: http://wegotthiscovered.com/news/biowares-cofounders-retire/ (or their own blogs on Bioware's official site) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.20.254 ( talk) 19:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
in other words, even basic timeline information doesn't make the edit if it's not deemed flattering enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.20.254 ( talk) 12:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Michael Pachter, a video game analyst for Wedbush securities tends to agree that the controversy had something to do with the doctors' departure. source: http://www.technobuffalo.com/gaming/analyst-blames-whiney-bioware-fans-for-bioware-docs-retirements/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.177.74 ( talk) 10:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
as requested before ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_Effect_3#Edit_request_on_29_September_2012) Id like to add the me3 explorer project to the controversy. What more sources do I have to provide? if facebook isnt reliable, why is the retake movement (a facebook group) then accepted? would a link to sourceforce (binary source) or to the forum about it, be better? greetz WV Links: fb: www.facebook.com/pages/Creating-new-end-for-Mass-Effect-3/145902408865659 sf: sourceforge.net/projects/me3explorer/ forum: me3explorer.freeforums.org/ 141.46.207.19 ( talk) 09:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
you know what, fuck you wikipedia ppl, I dont know what more sources your need, modders exist, wikipedia gets dumb... bye
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
84.181.7.79 ( talk) 18:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I dont want to change something, just add: the mod community starts to hack the game for creating new ends by fans, maybe this should be added to the end controversy. Source: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Creating-new-end-for-Mass-Effect-3/145902408865659
greetz WV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.181.31.229 ( talk) 20:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: well, dont know if it counts, but thats the program that does all the modding: http://sourceforge.net/projects/me3explorer/
Does Kotaku count as a reliable source? here's the link
http://kotaku.com/5958700/theres-now-a-mod-that-gives-mass-effect-3-a-happy-ending 202.72.135.193 ( talk) 06:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change 'your fighting against' to 'you are fighting against' in the Multiplayer section, as the grammar is incorrect. Nuwan ag ( talk) 06:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Done - with
this edit, avoiding 'you/you are' entirely I think is preferable. Thank you for pointing this out.
Begoon
talk 06:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as though this is nominated under 5 catagories, including GOTY, and the 2011 VGA's are already mentioned on this page, I say it's worth mentioning under reception. Pluvia ( talk) 08:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Done Checked out the Assassin's Creed 3 page to see if they mentioned the VGA's, they had, so I added the links and nominations in the reception section.
Pluvia (
talk) 09:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Rather than starting an editing war I'll mention here why it should be left as "some fans". The five sources cited at the start of the controversy section all link to articles mentioning this facebook poll as a source for fan outrage. As of writing this it has 63.4k likes, which is 4.2% of the sales figures mentioned in March alone. That is a vast minority, so unless anyone can find a better source than the ones mentioned in the controversy section that shows it's "a sizable amount" of fans that were displeased with the ending I suggest we leave the grammar as "some", as that doesn't suggest minority or majority. Pluvia ( talk) 10:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Been attempting Google searches regarding the exact numbers of dissatisfaction. Problem is the polls in question have been VERY erratic at best. For example, that CNN reference I just added in a few minutes ago has shown that a number of fans that are vehemently against the ending were as high as 89% at the time of CNN's report. The original intent behind using the word "sizable" is for the sake of neutrality, because no one knows if it's an extreme minority, or a silent majority. Not every single individual will express his/her dislike of the Mass Effect 3 ending due to multiple unknown variables. Dibol ( talk) 10:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Therefore we can't say it was a sizable amount, Wikipedia isn't about guessing how much people disliked it, we have to use sources. The source mentioned five times in the controversy section points to it being a vast minority, which is not a sizable amount, therefore some is the most neutral word. Pluvia ( talk) 11:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thousands is also not neutral wording, as that could be anything from 2k to 999k, I would be fine mentioning thousands as long as we mention how much of a minority the Retake movement are. Some is neutral wording compared to "many" or "few", this is the middle ground. The controversy section arguably has trouble with neutrality at the moment and it doesn't need anymore bias. If you undo it again I'll take this to someone higher up than us to decide. Pluvia ( talk) 17:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Controversy section.
The article currently states "On September 18, 2012, Bioware announced that it's Co-founders, Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuck, had officially retired and left Bioware to pursue other goals.[185] An Ex-Bioware Developer claimed that the negative fan feedback of Mass Effect 3's ending and Star Wars: The Old Republic were responsible for their retirement"
I believe its worth mentioning on September 28th, Dr. Ray Muzika stated on his twitter the following "I respect/revere fans, because they speak with deep, honest passion. Journalists speculating on ill-founded rumors should reassess approach. Good websites demand clarity and credibility – lesser ones enable ill-informed individuals to make stuff up about other people" in response to the comments made by said Ex-bioware Developer. Leading people to believe the comment about the reason for their retirement being fan backlash to be nothing more than unfounded gossip.
His tweet can be found https://twitter.com/RayMuzyka/status/251808651671642113
As well as an article by Cinema Blend. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/BioWare-Co-Founder-Ray-Muzyka-Defends-Passionate-Fans-Blasts-Gaming-Journalists-47573.html
I believe adding Dr. Muzyca's reply to a comment that spoke for him is an important addition to the controversy section of the Mass Effect 3 entry.
Quikbeam ( talk) 03:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this additional credit under the Writer(s) section: "John Dombrow (senior)" Citation: [1] 173.181.87.133 ( talk) 18:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I came across an article that analyzes the reasons for the fan outcry over ME3. It's published on GameSpot by one of their senior editors, so it qualifies as a reliable source, I think, and I haven't seen many articles discussing the topic from a neutral POV. Maybe one of the primary editors of this article could add it here? -- Koveras ☭ 12:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to be reasonable here. I'm trying to preserve the quality and objective nature of Wikipedia here. But if anyone even dares to readd the bullshit that was spewed over this page without cleaning it up, without the completely false information, without the goddamned lies, then I will deal with them personally.
I've had enough of Retroller bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.185.171 ( talk) 18:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The Downloadable Content section needs updating. It's unfortunate that a person has to buy the game to find out what DLC is available for the game. As of today's date:
DLC Title | Type | Release Date | Relative Price* | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
From Ashes | Singleplayer | 02 March 2012 | 0.16% / Free with Collector's Edition | 0-Day DLC. Includes an alternate outfit for each squadmate, a mission, a new squadmate Javik who is the last surviving Prothean, and a new weapon. |
Resurgence | Multiplayer | 10 April 2012 | Free | 2 new maps, 3 new weapons, 4 pcs. of equipment, and 4 new classes. |
Rebellion | Multiplayer | 29 April 2012 | Free | 2 new maps, 3 new weapons, misc. new equipment & consumables, and 4 new classes. |
Extended Cut | Singleplayer | 26 June 2012 | Free | Revamped ending of game. Nearly 4 gig of content. |
Earth | Multiplayer | 17 July 2012 | Free | 3 new maps & weapons, misc. new equipment & consumables, and 6 new classes. |
Fireflight Pack | Singleplayer | 07 August 2012 | 0.03% | 7 new weapons. |
Leviathan | Singleplayer | 28 August 2012 | 0.16% | (description needed) |
Retaliation | Multiplayer | 09 October 2012 | Free | New Faction with all new weapons & accoutrements. |
Groundside Resistance Pack | Singleplayer | 16 October 2012 | 0.03% | 2 new assault rifles, 2 pistols, and a harpoon gun. |
Alternate Appearance Pack 1 | Singleplayer | 20 November 2012 | 0.03% | New outfits for Garrus, Liara, & EDI, Shepard Cerberus Ajax Armor. |
Omega | Singleplayer | 27 November 2012 | 0.33% | (description needed) |
Reckoning | Singleplayer? | 24 February 2013 | Free | 7 new weapons, 5 new weapon mods, 2 new pcs of gear, and 6 new character kits. |
Citadel | Singleplayer | 05 March 2013 | 0.33% | Shore leave for the Normandy. |
I support DLC tables, and the above content in general (pricing as percentage excepted), however I prefer the List of Mass Effect 2 downloadable content format. Given the Mass Effect 3 DLC quantity, I support a separate List of Mass Effect 3 downloadable content article. – Conrad T. Pino ( talk) 02:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
How about MEHEM mod? http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/368/index/14795358 should be added to controversy 84.181.28.53 ( talk) 17:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
RudolfRed (
talk) 03:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC) You're invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Illusive Man#Request for comment.
czar
·
· 02:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The following sentence is taken from the Multiplayer section: "One year after game release, BioWare discontinued any further multiplayer challenges, while leave challenge system functional and servers up." While leave? I could be misunderstanding that sentence, but I think it contains an obvious grammatical error. 74.138.45.132 ( talk) 00:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest a separate article for the ending, and being not one to deny my likes I hereby suggest one. The ending is, for better or for worse, one of the more infamous endings in gaming. It's spawned mods, theorising (Indoctrination Theory, anyone?), harshly divided opinions, an infinite number of internet fights -- and ever so importantly, given those're hardly the most unique qualities, gained the attention of the media and all of this was noted and covered by numerous secondary sources. And not just small mentions, but long essays. In addition to the former we've got some production info on other ending ideas, BioWare defending it and then releasing an "Extended Cut", in turn leading to debates on artistic integrity and whether changing it is right, reviews on the new ending, plus people complaining that frankly all of this has been a bit overblown.
As far as articles go, this is probably a more unique one. Seen a lot of character articles, the occasional location article, but I can't really think of any other endings that get their own article; but Mass Effect 3's ending is a special case, notable separately from the main game. The coverage is there, and I think it's more than enough for a full article. The article'd be flame bait, I'm sure (though it's died down since), but what kind of encyclopedia would we be if we only covered topics that were easy? A quick look, thanks to the special VG Google searcher:
Kotaku seem to have had a field day with it. While not all of those sources may be usable together, there're undoubtedly more still. I know there's more on "Should they change it or not?" from my memory, and I recall coverage on the Indoctrination Theory, on the Happy Ending mod, on the Extended Cut, etc. – Bellum ( talk) ( contribs) 04:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOffline 23:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A statement is made in the article: "The U.S. Better Business Bureau also responded to the controversy, supporting claims by fans that BioWare falsely advertised the player's "complete" control over the game's final outcome."
This is only partially accurate. The statement was made by a single member of the Better Business Bureau in an opinion piece, originally located: http://www.bbb.org/blog/2012/04/mass-effect-3-is-having-a-mass-effect-on-its-consumers-for-better-or-worse/. The article phrasing implies that it is an official statement made by the BBB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.27.63 ( talk) 07:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the controversies section has a lot of undue weight to it, so I'm going to see about trimming it down a bit. The areas I think need consolidation.
JRT ( talk) 02:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've made a few edits, the two areas mentioned above, plus removed a few extra details of the Retake campaign (do we really need to know the flavors they were sent?). JRT ( talk) 02:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless there is a clear reason to doubt the source, I don't think you can revert the addition of sourced content without getting consensus first. Martijn Meijering ( talk) 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
So the term "fan reception" is described as being a more "neutral" term, but the fact is, not every video game or entertainment related article for that matter, have "fan reception" sections. Several of them of course, have "controversy" sections. That's when the ending controversy section of this article was called, "controversy." And it was quite a hot topic then. It's not talked about now but when the subject is brought up, there is no unanimous consensus about whether the extended cut did enough to ramify things. So I say, change the title of that section back to Controversy. Osh33m ( talk) 05:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Could this game be classified as open world? ECW28 ( talk) 08:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No. More like a "large corridors" game. 177.43.84.61 ( talk) 10:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mass Effect 3. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section has nothing to do with gameplay. SharkD Talk 08:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Mass Effect 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mass Effect 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/7352856/10When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Everyone,
For the past few months, I have been working on improving this article. As far as I can tell, the only section that still needs significant expansion is Reception, which I plan on tackling this weekend. However, all feedback is welcome. If anyone is willing to review the article and provide some informal takeaways, I would really appreciate it. Hopefully, we are close to a GA nomination. Thanks for your help!-- Ktmartell ( talk) 15:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AdrianGamer ( talk · contribs) 14:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The reception section needs a lot of work and all the sources mentioned need to be replaced, but the article as a whole is in great shape. AdrianGamer ( talk) 14:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the way the section is named is bad, but I believe "Controversy" is still the most sensible name to title the section. Are there any objections to changing it back to that? -- Osh33m ( talk) 18:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Good Afternoon Friends - In my opinion, the plot summary is in danger of becoming overly detailed. There are three clear trimming opportunities: [1] Character and lore descriptions should be moved to the "Character and setting" section. For example, the Citadel should not be described and explained within the plot summary because it is important enough to the setting to simply be in the "Character and setting" section. [2] Characters that relay information to Shepard do not need to be explicitly referenced. For example, singling out Traynor as tracking down Cerberus is not important enough to be included in a general plot summary. [3] Continual references to "Shepard and the crew" are not necessary. This is not how the summaries of ME1 and ME2 are worded. Simply saying "Shepard does this" or "Shepard does that" is usually fine, with some exceptions. Please let me know if anyone takes issue; otherwise, I will make these adjustments later in the week.-- Ktmartell ( talk) 17:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)