Originally Posted by guyladouche
It's things like this that make me hate the litigious nature of people here in the US. I sincerely hope this person is denied any such claim.
I never played the ME series, and I honestly have not followed the news about it. I don't know what was supposedly said about it pre-release, but no doubt whomever at EA/Bioware said things pre-release, it's under some sort of "unofficial" capacity, and I find it hard to believe that *nothing* that was said pre-release panned out in ME3.
Are there not multiple endings depending on how the user plays out?
I did not buy ME3 because I was weary of EA. I am really sad that they proved my bad thoughts of them right. This block of text I quoted proves your opinion as to the person should be denied this claim is unfounded. Opinions can be unfounded or not, this is true. But unfortunately it's not much beyond that. The Mass Effect series has fans as fanatic as star wars and star trek. People make full blown expensive costumes to wear to -cons and such. They make replica guns from the game. They discuss topics for weeks on end based on a few minutes or a glimpse of some in-game footage on what might be canon or at least suggested as such. Random, completely crazy stuff like that. If you actually read the link in the OP, the first post of the forum thread is a compilation of various Producers, developers and others who spoke for EA in various interviews. Interviews are ALWAYS filtered through marketing to make sure certain details aren't released, or to make sure the interviewer isn't going to ask questions that would deface the company or the product. Therefore, one could attribute the quotes in those interviews as 'official releases of information, thus representing EA' in the eye of the law...at least, I'm willing to bet a good lawyer could argue that point.
Several of the quotes have direct wording, stating the game will have multiple endings based on the choices you've made in the previous two games. Apparently, there is only one major ending clip and nothing in it is personalized or customized at all. I could be an infiltrator who saved an entire bug race whos queen telepathically controls her colony of millions of her kind. In a previous war according to game lore, several species had to cooperate to stem the tide of these vermin at one point...and after the war was over, the krogan race(the grunts used to fight the bugs) had to be attacked by a highly advanced genetic bio attack to make all but 1 in 50? or 1 in 100 impregnations fail to give birth. Because they were violent and could multiply fast enough to replace lost soldiers to face said bugs. So, super annoying, toxic acid spitting, space-surviving creatures possibly join in my character's battle to save earth. But your a soldier who killed the queen when given the chance because of what her race did in said previous war that was so talked up as horrible...but you get the same ending, even though your character has a significant less massive fighting force.
Each interaction your character has with certain influential characters across ME1 and ME2 should have dictated at least 5+ endings...2 good, 2 evil, 1 neutral; The possibility for upwards of 20 is possible with all the various interactions you can do between ME1 and ME2. What players got however, is one generic ending. One. What if Luke stayed to finish jedi training with Yoda? Maybe he would be so enlightened like the jedi of old to leave han solo to his own devices, forever encased in carbonite. He might never have truly 'known' his father because he would have become much more powerful and killed darth vader and the emperor without a struggle which reveals the passionate bond of father and son at the very end. How many star wars fanatics do you know would love to debate how many different things would have changed in the story if only that one situation was changed? It's like that. Any numerous outcomes imaginable for ME3, and we get one.
If the FTC is in place to protect civilians from false advertising of products of all shapes and sizes, and a product is advertised to have certain features or claims to be capable of certain tasks, should we not be allowed to get our money back if that product fails? should we not be allowed to force the company into rectifying the situation somehow, in a reasonable manner debated in a court room? How does a video game differ from another product? Perhaps you would say it is purely entertainment and no claims by the company could be solid enough because everyone reads a story a different way; these developers are clearly, word for word, quoted as saying the game will have certain capabilities, which it does not. Unless each interview and/or quote can be tied with disclaimers saying the information divulged is not representative of Bioware or EA, then EA or Bioware are responsible for all such claims, IMO. While I agree the arguement over entertainment is less important than arguing over say, the claimed function of a device meant to save a life and then it not working as advertised, we should not allow a company to make false claims it cannot live up to or at least force said companies into certain restrictions of advertisement or face heavy fines.