Talk:Mass Effect 3/Archive 1

Trailer released

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)

Holiday?

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 always thought "Holiday 2011" referred to the US Thanksgiving/Christmas period, if that's so I suppose an international wording would be Q4 2010. Rehevkor ✉ 21:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Bioware, a Canadian company, announced the release date for "Holiday 2011". The word is in quotation marks and referenced; it is also wikilinked, for anyone who doesn't understand, to Christmas and holiday season. "Q4" means any time from the beginning of October to the end of December; "Holiday" (as in the "holiday season") traditionally goes from late November to the first or second week in January. This being a game release, it's likely to be before Christmas. Therefore, 'Holiday' is a much more narrow and detailed term than Q4. Swarm ^X 23:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Main problem being that "Holiday" refers to summer, not Q4 in Europe. I've tagged it with "Nov/Dec" for clarity and secularity.Angry Mustelid (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the holiday article here suggests "holiday season" is used in the UK too, but when I think of "holiday 2011", I think of the summer. Rehevkor ✉ 02:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This really is a non-issue. Just wikilink holiday season (it redirects to Christmas and holiday season), no discussion needed. Swarm ^X 02:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, somewhat, wouldn't Q4 encompass the North American holidays, anyway, AND be an international method of indicating the approximate timeframe? I suppose that using the direct quote is more precise, though, but the fact that you need to mouse-over the link to see where it leads to understand that it refers to the Christmas season isn't very user-friendly and doesn't convey the information very quickly to the reader. Gary King (talk · scripts) 05:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Should be fine now, no? Swarm ^X 00:05, 15 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)

Well, they're very Northern Hemisphere-oriented, that's the problem, so they assume most people will think November to December when they say such things, either not realising or not caring that it might be a bit confusing to our brothers in the Southern Hemisphere. Nope, they're not gonna give us the info more precisely I'm said to say. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

They're a Canadian company, and in Canada and the US "holiday season" only refers to what some call the Christmas season. There's never any clarification needed, that's just the societal name for it. Otherwise, North America uses "vacation" where other countries use "holidays". For example, what the UK calls the "summer holidays" we in North America call "summer vacation". It's a clear, definite and indisputable distinction in North American English. Swarm ^X 02:08, 21 April 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

Not Necessarily the Last Game

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)

I think it was always presumed that while the Mass Effect "trilogy" had a beginning, middle and an end, this was only in terms of Shepard's story. Other games are probably likely, starring new/other characters, but at this point it's all speculation, we'd need more solid sourcing than a passing mention such as this, so far the coverage has been saying this will be the final game. "Shadows on the silver. And silence. The circle closed." and all that. Rehevkor ✉ 14:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where I read this, but pretty sure somebody official said ME3 is the final game in Shepard's story as in there may/may not be other games set in the same universe, it just won't be about Shepard.202.53.199.23 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right and it will be like the Pirates films where they have a fourth film and different story (still with Depp ofc, but Bloom's story is over). They might do what Ubisoft is doing with AC except make neat little trilogies for each character's story arc. If it sells, don't put it to rest. Ofc we'll need more sources to confirm that.Hpelgrift (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Development section?

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)

Music: Wall and Hulick leaving the series

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)

Everything Has Been Organized

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)

"Reapers coming to destroy human race"

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)

If my memory suits me they basically pwn the hell out of any race that is either capable of space-travel or has reached a certain point in its technological development every 50.000 years, and yeah that includes able to use Mass Relays and Mass Effect. Not very friendly folks imo. Hpelgrift (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

ME3 engine

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)

Our article on the Unreal Engine has no information about a version 3.5 (btw, on a side note, you can create a redirect by using the button in the toolbar - I did it for you in this case), so that is probably only an unofficial name. As such, there is no real reliable sources that refer to the engine as "3.5" and none that tie it to ME3. I found one mention through Google here that says that ME2 used 3.5 but for the moment there is no way to answer this in any reliable way and thus also no way to integrate such information into the article (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). On a side note, please remember that talk pages are not a forum about the subject itself, so if you have any more questions about ME3 itself and not the article about it, you are probably better served with asking them at a dedicated forum for Mass Effect 3. Regards SoWhy 11:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Brenon Holmes from BioWare said it's not really a new engine. They're just using some tweaks from ME2 PS3 in ME3 and vice versa. http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/5545910/2#5580629 194.78.37.122 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It'll probably turn out to be UE3. TehMissingLink ^Talk 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as Unreal Engine 3.5 - and every Unreal Engine 3 developer tends to make various changes to the engine, such is their perogative as a licensee who can do as they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.229.89 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with your statement regarding the Unreal 3.5 Engine. Mass effect 3 and Gears of War 3 are both slated to use the Unreal 3.5 Engine. With that said however, I believe that the Unreal Engine 3.5 is just a heavily modified and updated version of the Unreal Engine 3. That leaves me wondering if these games should just be labeled as using a heavily modified Unreal 3 Engine, or if we should keep them as using the 3.5 Engine. Personally either way seems acceptable to me. - 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.6.190 (talk)

Wich platform in particular is this game desgined for?

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)

Edit request from Naseeg915, 4 April 2011

According to Gamestop, the release date for Mass Effect 3 is 11/9/2011

Naseeg915 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Game stores are not reliable sources for release dates. They often estimate (or lie) to help secure pre-orders. Rehevkor ✉ 20:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

PAL release date 09.03.2012

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)

How to approach Kinect support

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)

Is there anything actually known about it? Isn't it little more than a rumour based on a (leaked?) cover at the moment? There's no way to tell how it'll be implemented anyway, might just be a gimmick. Rehevkor ✉ 00:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's tactical/dialogue voice control type thing. I suppose if there's the coverage and enough detail to support it's own section it should have one. Rehevkor ✉ 00:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it an Action RPG?

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)

From everything I've read, ME3 is bringing in more RPG elements than ME2 had.

• http://www.newsarama.com/games/e3-2011-mass-effect-3-closed-door-110616.html
• http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/04/08/mass-effect-3-to-have-deeper-rpg-elements-expanded-skill-trees-and-alternative-endings/
• http://www.oxm.co.uk/18111/news/mass-effect-3-will-shift-back-towards-rpg/

I have no idea where you heard that rumor, but it seems to be wrong. Swarm ^X 21:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Release Dates

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/

Source 3: http://gnn.com.ng/2011/06/06/e3-2011-mass-effect-3-dated-live-action-trailer-depicts-earth-in-turmoil/

Source 4: http://www.ps3trophies.org/news/news-3903-E3-2011--Mass-Effect-3-Preview-%E2%80%93-It%E2%80%99s-The-End-Of-The-World-As-We-Know-It%E2%80%A6-Or-Is-It-?.html

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.

Relationships

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)

I've changed it to your suggestion; it sounds better anyway. Swarm 19:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How is this game not considered a romance game when that is the way I and many others play it? It seems like "dating sims" are only for Japanese games. What about Western romance simulators?Zhandao (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

One tiny aspect of a game, does not make a genre. Look up games that are considered to be dating sims. That is 90-100% of their game play. Is the first mass effect game a commerce simulator since you sell and buy equipment?Caidh (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If more than one romantic subplot is enough to make a game a "dating sim", I think the inclusion of more than one form of fauna in Super Mario Brothers is enough to count it as a horticulture/mycology game. Dragon Age comes closer to the date sim tropes than any Mass Effect game does. - Vianello (Talk) 04:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

RPGs have had romantic sub plots since forever - this does not make them dating sims. How you choose to play the game has no bearing either, the article is based on reliable sources. A Google search] brought up nothing to support your claim beyond forums, blogs, social networking sites and at best, anecdotal references. Яehevkor ✉ 11:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

He/she for Shepard

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)

Is there any actual canon for Shepard's gender? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 02:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not according this this source [1], but that doesn't necessarily rule out using one or the other here. Яehevkor ✉ 19:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Just because Shepard is usually depicted as male doesn't mean that this article has to refer to the character as male, if you think this your priviledge is really showing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.18.98 (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It has a strong basis on what this article does, actually. If almost all the promotional material, trailers, box art, screen shots etc, show the default male Shepherd, it makes a strong case for referring to him here as male. Using gender neutral adjectives or he/she can become cumbersome and inconsistent in a long article and coming to a consensus to use one of the other will make life easier (not that I'm implying consensus could be reached), privilege has nothing to do with it. In my mind the male Shepherd has the much stronger case. Яehevkor ✉ 19:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the default character the default male? That being the case while Shepard can be female, by default he, like most ME players, is male. That being said NWN2 classes are given genders and while I never had a problem reading Class X ... he\the class X ... it irritated me when they assumed I'd be a chick if I played a sorcerer or whatever. Assume he's a guy unless it bugs a lot of girls in which case cumbersome 'll have to do. 118.208.177.8 (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As aforementioned "single editor" who turned the first two games' summaries gender-neutral, I just thought I'd weigh in. I did that partially to maintain an objective & encyclopedic viewpoint, partially as a self-imposed challenge... and partially because the summaries are constantly wrapped up in if/then language, due to the number of variables and the forty gazillion potential outcomes. I feel like assigning one path as "canon" does a disservice to the games, which are all about choice and how there is not, necessarily, one right way to solve every problem. As such, the summaries need to encompass the variables, and show how they play out, objectively and without judgment. And since Shepard's gender is one of those variables, it needs to remain undefined. Even if that does make it harder for me to write the darn summaries. ~Marblespire (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(And for the record, I'm a male running three separate saves. One is a Paragon female, one is a Renegade male, and one is a male I whipped up last week with the express intent of killing off everybody--only Miranda and Kasumi survived the suicide mission, and only Kasumi was loyal. I consider the Paragon female to be my "real" Shepard. ~Marblespire (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC))

Weapons

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)

Mass Effect 2 DLC expansion Arrival

• Will we need Mass Effect 2 DLC expansion Arrival in order to play Mass Effect 3? 68.75.25.228 (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Does something in the article suggest otherwise? Яehevkor ✉ 10:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then what's this about?

• Mass Effect 3 will follow from the events of the Mass Effect 2 DLC expansion Arrival
• Mass Effect 3 will begin with Commander Shepard on Earth for trial as a result of events from the Mass Effect 2 DLC pack Arrival 68.75.25.228 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it means the plot follows on from that point. I don't see how it implies the DLC is required. Яehevkor ✉ 17:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, the plot of ME3 (initially) follows from the events of that DLC story-wise. That's it. Swarm 18:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Improvements?

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)

What do you mean? Swarm 00:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Ktmartell is referring to the page ratings on the bottom of the page. The writing in the article seems fairly good to me, a few unsourced statements, but nothing major. Яehevkor ✉ 10:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Development and Marketing

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)

Online pass

"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)

Good catch! You're right and I've corrected the wording. Swarm ^X 08:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

1000 variables

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)

Sources? Яehevkor ✉ 23:05, 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

Rating

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)

(new discussions go at the bottom) PEGI themselves give no rating yet. I don't believe retail sites are reliable sources, and apparently (and confusingly) the BBFC have rated this game for the UK. Яehevkor ✉ 20:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm American so I'm not 100% familiar with the PEGI rating system, but the pegi.info site does not list Mass Effect 3 yet. They have Mass Effect 1, 2, and some DLC but not 3. Either the ratings that sites are using are based on them being 'expected' to be PEGI 18, or the ratings database on PEGI's only site are not updated. Perhaps these are provisional ratings of some sort that the gaming (news & retail) sites are using?Caidh (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you go on the Mass Effect 3 WEBSITE, and watch their trailers and such, it's rated as PEGI 18. This isn't speculation from retail sites - this is the rating the game's publisher is giving us. I wouldn't think they would give such a high age rating, if it was going to be a 15 or 16 instead. More than likely they've been told the rating and PEGI haven't updated their list yet.

See: http://www.masseffect.com/me3/home/ Within the first second of the video, PEGI 18 shows up. Not "likely" or "most probably," but a solid confirmation of the rating. Lord-Schmee (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Local box art shows MA15+ rating. So legally restricted to over 15. There's only one higher legal classification. Amazon.com's still showing RP. 118.208.50.217 (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Origin and PC's

“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)

Origin is NOT banned in Germany. Where do you have this information?

Also, the respected German magazine c't did some tests and didn't find any hint that Origin actually scans or transmits any personal data. I haven't found the article on their website, only a quote on severa Gamer websites: http://game2gether.de/47858/ct-vorwurfe-gegenuber-origin-waren-und-sind-unbegrundet/ (German). The article can be found in c't 24/2011 192.166.53.200 (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Console Specific?

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).

Background

Do we really need to give background information in the plot section? Ktmartell (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably doesn't need to cover quite so much detail, as long as it covers the link with "Arrival" and has links to ME1 and 2 plots. Яehevkor ✉ 12:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wider Love Interest?

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)

Shepard's death

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)

Indoctrination Theory

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)

WP:NN, sorry. If more sources mention this, then yes. --Soetermans. T / C 06:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic rants

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)

Ratings in reception sections always use the MC critics' average, not the user average. Regards SoWhy 09:26, 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)

I DID read the negative rewiews. SOME of them had sensible things to say - mostly about the day one DLC and the (potential, if you really work at developing the character relationship) homosexual scene. Some actually were valid opinions/criticism. Not everyone is going to love ANY plot - and the level of graphics have been seen before. MANY of them were obvious vitiolic filler to prop up a negative rating post. And it was quite clear that clots of self-reinforcing negative review bombers had up rated each others' posts; seriosly, when I looked large numbers of negative reviews were found helpful by the same number of people (really, EXACTLY 17 people each time?!).

In the end, it won't matter. Either the game will sell well past the initial fan push, and show good market performance (continuing sales, players willing to continue the game with DLC, etc.) - or it won't.

Purile whiners rate bombing metacritic won't matter a whit. - 173.230.187.183 (talk) 22:53, 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)

The volume doesn't mean anything. Are we expect to reference something as credible just because of 500 rants brought on by internet mentality. Heck, 500 is small compared to other instances of ranting and/or trolling online. Even if there are legitimate points, since there is inherent bias that clogs up the score so much and the fact that many user scores were made on day of release meaning it's highly unlikely anyone has either actually played it or close to playing a good chunk of it at the the time, how can anyone call that credible and worthy of reference as a genuine reflection of reception? Metacritic doesn't represent gamers on the whole and has had habits of this mob mentality in the past. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Whatever you personally think about the merit of those user reviews, they are not reliable sources and thus have no place in this article. The discussion here seems to be more about whether they are valid or not - which belongs to a forum, not this talk page. Regards SoWhy 19:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

DRM

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)

It uses EA's Origin service as DRM. Says so in the "Release" section of the article. -Rycr (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic ratings are up.

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)

Arrival DLC

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)

more detail in the plot section

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)

Edit War from Fanbase

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)

As long as the information is from a reliable source(s), verifiable, and notable, then this is a simple content dispute, regardless of your agenda or theirs. It is not our job to determine what is "relevant", but whether or not it satisfies undue weight: "...in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Since WP:RS and WP:V seem to be fulfilled, I believe you are questioning the weight, correct? DrNegative (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. For instance, I left the links in, but the weight is not verifiable and I was just pointing out to be prepared for "edit wars". Plus I figured people should comment here on why this is worth commenting on. JRT (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well in my opinion, it has seen enough coverage in the media from respectable secondary sources to grant it a sentence or two noting it, in a neutral fashion without the peacock terms. As it stands now, it looks very vague and does not explain or at least briefly summarize to the reader why the fans feel that way (based on the sources). DrNegative (talk) 19:46, 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)

Forum postings prove nothing, the other article is an opinion piece. What is everyone's rush on this anyway, can we not freaking wait a week, or a month, to find out if any of this stuff is even remotely notable? Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The DLC controversy has seen reasonable coverage in reliable sources and I think it should probably be mentioned, in a minor way. But, as you say, there's no rush whatsoever. Swarm ^X 18:18, 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)

That argument, specifically "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." has been used plenty of times. I've never seen it be successful. Muskeato 11:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Redredryder, you are 'typically all for waiting' but not in this case. So you are typically for this since you registered a simple purpose account on March 11, 2012? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:38, 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)

Please note that there are a number of new editors here, that jumped right to the talk page. If you have come here from the above off site canvassing please read WP:TALK WP:RS WP:CAN WP:NOT and read through discussions on number of pages to get an idea of how things work around here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 13 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)

Edit request on 11 March 2012

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)

 Not done How is this notable? Please read WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 2 on 11 March 2012

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

 Not done

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 ?

please see below, where it says 'not done' and please never ever change others' talk page comments. , The user 'Sid' has no contributions, if you are 'Sid' please sign in. Finally, read WP:RS and WP:RECENTISM . There is no rush on this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Hi there. If you want to make an edit request, please coherently put together/describe the edit that you wish to make so a confirmed user can review it. As it currently stands, it's unclear what specific edit you're requesting. Thanks! Swarm ^X 18:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Please don't get caught up in the Wikidrama. The requester needs to make his request in a coherent manner and provide reliable sources. If he wishes to do that, he should follow proper talk page etiquette and provide the new request below the rest of the discussion. Editing posts on a talk page, even when logged in as the original author, is discouraged since it results in confusion. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy segment in the article

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)

Any so called controversy should be inserted into the article in appropriate sections, rather than having a separate section. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not what was done with Dragon Age II, despite the controversies being much less severe than ME3's. Regardless, we could probably fit a controversy subheader in under Release instead of making a completely seperate section for it. --Smoochiekins (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Smocchiekins is right, other examples include Doom, Grand Theft Auto, Left 4 Dead 2, and Modern Warfare 2 (has it's own page). At some point this article will need its own Controversy section. Redredryder (talk) 08:01, 13 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)

No, you do not understand WP:RS. Saying that editors are compromised is a very serious thing, without evidence you really ought not to say stuff like that, please see WP:NPA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2012

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)

Also, WP:Recentism. A tad redundant to change something based on the notion that a game is the highest rated title of a year when you're only three months into the year. Let the dust settle. --Smoochiekins (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Most definitely  Done. Metacritic reports "universal acclaim" based on 46 all positive reviews. Any reception section should give a balanced sampling of reviews, but if, in its current state, it's giving undue weight to the criticisms, then that's a problem. Swarm ^X 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

While there does seem to be undue weight, since it's also in need on an expansion generally, some of this might hopefully be offset in the near future. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User reviews

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)

Note:I probably shouldn't call the section "glowing" because there are criticisms. What I meant to express in my previous comment is that we should use the actual numerical rating from metacritic and essentially say that while professional critics have loved the game, the user ratings have been low. Saedon (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As you are new around wikipedia you might not be aware of our sourcing requirements. User reviews are self published and do not qualify as reliable sources. (It has already been discussed above BTW). Read WP:RS for details. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(from vg talk) WP:SPS. I don't think we should cite the user scores, because there is no editorial oversight and general bias, therefore no reliable scoring system. Giving the game "0" or "1" and listing a few subjective issues, while ignoring the majority of content is not reception/review/criticism/journalism. None of the authors are reliable reviewers. Just looking at examples where a user gives half the games 10 and half the other games 0 is in no way proper. And a collective score of these "reviews" isn't either. Besides, negative scores are always the loudest voices and too biased of a sample to draw any conclusions. We only cite the Metacritic and GameRankings scores because they use reliable reviews to accumulate those scores. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User-generate content (including reviews) is not considered a reliable source. If the fact that users rate it differently than professional reviewers is notable (as you seem to imply), then surely a reliable source discusses the phenomenon; that should then be used to source the statement. Salvidrim! 13:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I second what Salvidrim is saying. The only reason that User reviews should be mentioned is if a reliable sources is reporting on them for whatever reason. Like if an IGN editor does an article where he/she writes about how they noticed the User reviews were drastically different or something. Directly referencing fan/user reviews violates WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if these were replies to my comment specifically, but I didn't imply that we should include any of them. I was just elaborating on specifics why they cannot possibly be considered reliable or notable. Third party reliable coverage about this -- sure. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:03, 14 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/

Problem is though IF we were to mentioned Metacritic, the question there is whether the feedback was made because of game or just a biased rant on one small aspect? Because many would say the latter BUT we can't source it one way or the other. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Need bugs section.

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)

None of those meet WP:RS. Is there significant coverage in reliable sources that are not self published? Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Character face import Edit request on 15 March 2012

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 don't think this is enough of an issue to cover. The only source given that is a reliable source is the kotaku article and nothing there mentions people returning their games because of it. I had the problem myself but its a minor bug. Not really worth mentioning in the article.Caidh (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

✗ Not done Yeah, per above: every software has bugs and this can be seen as a smaller one, forums and helpages are either unreliable or primary/secondary sources and the kotaku reference is not enough. As I said: would we report every (fixed) bug in Microsoft Windows; the page would crash every web browser. mabdul 13:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Retake Mass Effect Charity Drive

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://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/15/paragons-of-protest-retake-mass-effect-raises-money-for-kids/

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)

In fact yes, until something gets significant media coverage that is exactly what we do, we ignore it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI there is plenty of media coverage surrounding this. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Is there any opposition to mentioning in the article that fans have raised almost $60K to protest the ending of the game? Redredryder (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The big reason we are slow to edit here is for the following reasons.

• This article is not a news site, nor is it to promote current events with Niche items. This article is going to be around 10 years from now, it should stick to long-term impacts over short-term items. It would be foolish to devote a lot of detail if this will blow over in a few weeks, depending on what ultimately happens.
• This isn't the place to promote campaigns like the Retake Mass Effect 3 campaigns. We're NPOV here, not taking sides.
• With all the various news going around, speaking from my personal opinion, I'd like to take time to review and filter it--it's hard to tell the bloggers from the larger news sites--some of these columns are opinion pieces--and there's so much back and forth on it it's hard to get everything together. I'd rather review over the next few weeks and report after figuring out what opinions matter and what makes sense.

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)

If we were to add a controversy section, we should probably discuss exactly what it should cover and try to gather sources for each topic. So far, there's the following;

• IGN's biased connection with the ME3 development [1]
• Day 1 DLC shenanigans (sources needed)
• Possibly the fan reaction to the ending (sources already in article, so perhaps it should stay under reception) and the Retake Mass Effect charity drive (sources above)

Anything I'm missing? --Smoochiekins (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that "controversy" sections are usually frowned upon in Wikipedia, see[[13]]. I think the only place it would be appropriate if it made huge mainstream attention--like Fox News' report about the original games sex scene. Out of the three bullet items you mention, the last one would be appropriate. Day 1 DLC is more or less common for all games, personally that would be more appropriate in a section about DRM or DLC in general, since many games are doing this. As for your first point--I'm sorry, outside of one article, the implication is not verifiable and potentially libelous. You are making a very serious accusation here and unless it can be proven, that does more harm than good. JRT (talk) 19:29, 19 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)

Remember, this is not a news site. Let everything die down, and see if this is all still a big deal, and yes if it is then, and it is still getting coverage we should of course add it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:07, 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)

No it is not against NPV--saying that it is controversial with fans is a simple statement of fact. The polls you are quoting are not scientific or statistically based. And there are no weasel words being used by that statement. I am sorry that some dejected game fans are upset that Wikipedia is not giving into the emotional drama, but sometimes, less is more if the facts are still unclear. Again, the only reason to rush to edit would probably try to actually use the article to influence opinion, which I suspect others are doing right now. I notice most of the people complaining about the article are people who are using IP addresses or very new users and aren't familiar with the Wikipedia methodology. I personally plan on expanding it later this week (and others can do so who are registered), but I'm trying to filter through all the items--most of these articles are just more or less opinion pieces. JRT (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with saying say 'most' fans is that we do not know this. We really cannot know it, short of a survey being done by a polling firm. It seems to me we have to say 'some' fans. Now the problem is, that is a weasel word, but I see no way around it. I figure we need some way to put it where it does not imply that all ME fans find the game to have a bad ending. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to write quotes from half a dozen reviews for this game? It may be just be me, but the current form almost reads more like a newspaper advertisement than an encyclopedia. We already have a chart with numerical values, would it not be better to just summarize notable common praises/criticisms mentioned in the reviews? And of course in time we add sales numbers and any relevant awards this thing might win.Redredryder (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is pretty typical, quoting many reviews. Perhaps, if you don't like that style, you could take it to the video games wikiproject? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, on the other hand, the problem with "some fans" is that it sort of belittles the scope of what's going on. In general I think editors have been a tad too vigorous in preventing trolling, which in turn has skewed the article too much in the other direction. We can report on the various controversies without breaching NPOV, so long as we keep WP:Recentism in mind; in fact, mentioning their existence is much more NPOV than not doing so, as they are just as relevant to the game's release as the reviews are. At the very least I would propose changing "The game's ending has been controversial with some fans" to "The game's ending has been notably controversial within the franchise's fandom" to avoid quantifying the fans altogether. Seems the more neutral thing to do without neither over- nor understanding their numbers. --Smoochiekins (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have simply been trying to follow policy. Yes something like that would work. NPOV remember, means we neutrally report on sources, not that we treat all sides equally. Saying it is 'notably controversial' seems sort of heavy handed. We are getting there though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's true that we have to report neutrally on articles, that's why I have been telling people to find sources for everything they want to contribute instead just adding it in on this page. In theory though, neutrally reporting on sources doesn't mean that we can't include segments about the various controversies so long as we don't give them undue weight in comparison to other aspects of the article, keep recentism in mind and find some good reliable sources. Anyway, notable in a wikipedia sense just means that it's had enough exposure to be be included in the article in the first place. Ie, it's notably controversial which is why someone has written about it and there's those 6-7 sources for it. In that sense though, it might be a tad redundant. It was more of a general suggestion on how we could fix the statement, regardless! Can always be modified --Smoochiekins (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Would a Recentism tag WP:RECENT be fitting for an article like this, particularly if we add the controversy, or are they generally frowned upon? Redredryder (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think that is frowned up upon some. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:39, 20 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)

Now that is a good source I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility issues for the disabled gamer

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)

This isn't a forum. Posting week old jokes here isn't going to get you anywhere.Redredryder (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we would need coverage in a RS, specifically about this game and colour blindness, before we could add this. Without that it would violate WP:OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:31, 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

New section for the controversy over the game's ending?

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:

• http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/22/mass-effect-3-makers-to-rewrite-soul-crushing-ending-for-furious-fans/
• http://www.ingame.msnbc.msn.com/technology/ingame/rage-over-mass-effect-3-ending-gets-answered-514404
• http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/21/gamers-held-the-line-mass-effect-3-ending-is-being-addressed/
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/03/21/mass-effect-3-ending-the-indoctrination-theory-is-the-easy-way-out/ JudgeSpear

(talk) 13:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bioware didn't actually relent to change the ending, only to provide "more clarity". (The Fox News and VB articles directly contradict as to whether or not the ending is being changed). Regardless this can wait until Bioware actually does something.Redredryder (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bioware should make an announcement sometime in April, whether or not the ending is changed.

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)

The Indoctrination Theory

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)

If the plot is changed with additional DLC, then that section will be updated appropriately. Until that time we cannot add speculation.Redredryder (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, let's get it right, rather than get it quickly. WP:CRYSTAL. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead Composer?

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)

Do you have a source you could link to showing this? WP:RS. Redredryder (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

They are within the file information in the soundtrack disc that comes with the game package. Directly from the product itself. Eno ^TALK 15:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a great point, Mansell was certainly hyped up but he only composed a few key pieces of the soundtrack; the vast majority was done by the four other composers. I've unhidden the other composers and listed them in alphabetical order, just as they appear in the game's credits. Swarm ^X 02:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

CONTROVERSY

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)

Comment sections are not reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement in text

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. SG²⁰⁹⁰ 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Bias

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)

Do you have specific complaints? List them and editors will see what they can do and if the changes are warranted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned the quotes on the wikiprojects discussion page [15]. The response was that they are fine as long as they contribute to the article. Having said that, can we remove or replace the IGN quote? The current quote "absolutely amazing game" tells us nothing that the 9.5 score by IGN doesn't already. Also can we agree to make a brief mention of the Jessica Chobot connection as suggested on the WP:RSN? (That discussion has been deleted but I can repost if you prefer) Redredryder (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason that the quote you refer to needs to be there. As for the IGN controversy, I'm not taking a position one way or another on it - but the discussion has not been deleted. Its still in this talk page in its own section. Nothing appears to have been removed from it.Caidh (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That discussion was on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not this talk page. Redredryder (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I misunderstood. My apologies for the mistake.Caidh (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I had the revert the edit. The Chobot controversy is a complete exaggeration. First, she played a minor character. Second, the game has been very well received by a the video game industry as a whole, not just by IGN. Complaining that its "glowing review" is biased makes no sense. It got a 10 from Eurogamer, Game Informer, and Xbox Official Magazine. The lowest score was from the ever-critical Edge magazine, which gave it an 8. So yeah, Chobot does work for IGN, but we don't have to mention it specifically. Third, except for The Escapist, what other media has mentioned this? Fourth, we're talking about video game entertainment here, not corrupt judges on the take. --Soetermans. T / C 08:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with Soetermans, video game journalism reviews by definition are not the pinnacle of creditability. Fluff reviews by video game websites such as IGN who's primary concern is getting the review out on the net ASAP in order to pander to gamers' confirmation bias, subsequently resulting in page views and ad revenue, are not the be all and end all of neutrality. Surely you don't think the likes of Eurogamer and Game Informer are any different? Reading statements like, "Chobot does work for IGN, but we don't have to mention it specifically," when you're not only using IGN as a source for Reception, but featuring a quote like, "IGN gave Mass Effect 3 a rating of 9.5 and called it an "absolutely amazing game," is ludicrous. What exactly is "absolutely amazing game" adding to this article that wouldn't be there without this quote? Yet Chobot working for IGN apparently would not add to the article? To the last point, neutrality is no less important in one situation than it is any other. Wikipedia does not give license for one set of articles (video games) to be treated any differently from any other.--FLStyle (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't care for adding an IGN quote, the game gets enough praise already, but to specifically mention Chobot's involvement implies something else, by which we would be crossing WP:NPOV. The version by Redredryder was "IGN, whose own Jessica Chobot portrayed a character in-game, gave Mass Effect 3 a rating of 9.5." - reading this would imply that somehow the 9.5 has something to with Chobot being in the game. Leave IGN out of the reception is fine also. --Soetermans. T / C 15:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So you missed the discussion on WP:RSN but the consensus was that IGN is a reliable source and can be used for this review, but that we do need to mention her involvement in the game. If you have a better way to mention it then feel free, but to flat out ignore it would be a much worse violation of WP:NPOV. Redredryder (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss it, but I wouldn't consider a discussion of three Wikipedians consensus. Besides, the way you mentioned Chobot's involvement still suggests that somehow IGN was being too positive in its review. But we don't have to state that IGN gave it a 9.5, which is already mentioned in the reception infobox. I removed IGN and expanded on Chobot, in that way the reader wouldn't think that IGN might've been unfair (which, as far as we know, might be or might not be true). I hope this is alright, otherwise I would consider opening another discussion. --Soetermans. T / C 17:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Starcraft reference?

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)

Please put new discussions on the bottom of the page. Concerning your question, I don't know. But unless it has an outside source, it has no place on Wikipedia. --Soetermans. T / C 21:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You're reading into this too much. The Citadel AI was clearly referring to synthetics in that conversation, and the plot of StarCraft II also seems to indicate that the Xel'Naga aren't extinct anyway. --Wordwyrm (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2012

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)

Jessica Chobot/IGN controversy

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)

I fail to see how this biases a review as she did not write it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:19, 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)

Please read WP:OR Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with original research, and everything to do with assessing the neutrality and reliability of a source. We wouldn't cite an on-air CNN review of a movie that gave a prominent speaking part to an active CNN reporter at all, let alone without stating the connection. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC) (and because it's sure to come up on a page like this, I edit solely as an anon these days; I'm not a sock of anyone, least of all User:Redredryder above. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC))

I think I'm with Dbrodbeck on this. I don't really see the problem myself, and it does in fact come under WP:OR. Muskeato 11:17, 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)

If you really and truly believe that IGN is no longer a reliable source for video game reviews, take this to the WP:RSN and be sure to let everyone else here know. She did not write the review, and everything you see in a forum posting is not a 'controversy'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:28, 13 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)

Find a reliable source explaining the IGN / ME3 connection, then. Without a proper source we are in no position to add anything as NPOV editors. --Smoochiekins (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Posted to WP:RSN. Link here [16]. Thoughts on response? Redredryder (talk) 17:24, 17 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)

I know I'm a week or two out for this conversation but do you seriously think 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is a valid argument here for treating IGN as a reliable source? What then about the Colin Moriarty video drama^{1 2}, wouldn't that necessarily bring their position into at least some realistic question in the article and thus make the IGN portion of the controversy appropriate content in this case. In this case IGN's communal reaction to the controversy is actually a relevant part of the controversy. --Karek^words?! 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

For anyone wondering the relevance, his(Colin Moriarty) is the review cited in the article for IGN. --Karek^words?! 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Indoctrination Theory

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)

It is also speculation. This has been discussed in the archives, if you take a look. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit

In section Controversy, there's a {{fact}} tagged on the first sentence,

The game's endings have been controversial with many fans.

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)

It really should read 'some'. We cannot know how many it is actually, and many seems to imply a majority. I think if we keep the present wording we have to have the tag, until someone presents a source that shows that the word 'many' is justified. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Either way, the statement seems weasely. I'm going to mark the template as answered for now, as there's currently an active discussion on the matter. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know, it really bugs me. I wish I could find a way to word it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be best to state that there was mixed reception to the ending. Given that the number of sales is many times greater than the number of people voicing discontent, there's nothing to prove that there is a majority. CaiusRagnarok (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau in Controversy section

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)

I disagree. From the gamespot article, the BBB director of marketing services was reported as saying: "The issue at stake here is, did BioWare falsely advertise?" she wrote. "Technically, yes, they did.". An official with the BBB making that statement seems to be more than enough to cover the statement in the article as shown.Caidh (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Other members of the BBB have stated that they disagree with the blog post. The blog post itself has numerous people who point out all of the inaccuracies with the author's claims. CaiusRagnarok (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reception sections should mention the awful fan response

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)

You do see the Controversy section below its reception right? --Soetermans. T / C 19:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and please see the discussion in a number of places here already. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The controversy section is about the lousy ending. I want the user's reception in the Reception section to balance the critics. 90.196.102.29 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read this talk page, it is explained, those are not reliable sources. They are self published. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The user reception on other sites like gamespot and imdb has been much more positive, perhaps we should mention them as well, why should we only mention metacritic? You see none of the user reviews on metacritic or any other gaming site whatsoever, don't qualify as a reliable source. However the score on IMDB has been mentioned in the reception section of many movie articles on this site, but not for any games by my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.229.215 (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The user reviews of Metacritic aren't mentioned in the article actually. Besides, that would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because other articles are like this or that doesn't mean this one should be as well. I suggest if you run into one of those articles that mention the GameSpot or IMDb user review, please, take it out, it has no place on Wikipedia. --Soetermans. T / C 19:33, 6 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)

Aggregate's of professional reviewers are fine, of others no, they are self published then and not RSs. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:46, 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)

Actually it is policy. If you find it ridiculous, that is another matter. Perhaps we should cite every blog post and forum post and twitter post and Facebook status about the game. Self publish sources are not reliable. Please read WP:RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that policy can you please show it to me? I suppose I should read it. But please spare me the hyperbole, I was not asking to cite every blog post and honestly I think that would be a bad idea. If you could show me an ***aggregate*** review by a particular community that is something that I feel should absolutely be included, especially after giving consideration to the useless paid reviews from media outlets. I can't believe I'm even arguing for this. — SMAP (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not hyperbole. You're bringing up what has been discussed to death here. Sources which let anyone submit a review/score are 100% not reliable sources with regards to WP:RS. Look up the (probably dozens by now) discussions regarding this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games. Caidh (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that the policy your friend was referring to? You clearly do not understand what hyperbole is or you completely misread what I wrote. Or both. This place is ridiculous. — SMAP (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Many of the low reviews are based on Metacritic attacks to controversial elements. Kotaku even had an article stating that they had to remove many violating reviews of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaiusRagnarok (talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really something worth note since Kotaku has articles about that regularly for many games, not just this one, and Metacritic actually does this regularly for a number of games in particular. --Karek^words?! 15:40, 29 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)

His/her

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 assume you're referring to the recent changes to the Plot section. I have to agree it doesn't read well, but I can really only see a few alternatives (that are actually accurate to the game):

1. Use one gender throughout but have a disclaimer at the top of the plot section which clarifies that the character may be either male or female. This does however have the problem of treating one gender as the primary.
2. Use some kind of gender-neutral pronoun. In most cases however, this would either be technically incorrect (from a formal language point-of-view) or difficult to understand (due to the lack of these pronouns in everyday speech).
3. Rewrite it so as to avoid such pronouns completely. This may however be difficult and may also be no less clunky (or even more so) than he/she and his/her.

We certainly cannot simply ignore the other gender option as that would be a misrepresentation of the game so at least some sort of compromise/neutral alternative is necessary.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another look at it and see if № 3 is viable - if it is it would certainly be preferable to the other two (IMHO anyway). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:50, 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)

Well, we certainly can't use it unqualified, otherwise it implies that there is no choice (and implies that the female Shepard is secondary). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, how's this? Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

His is actually linguistically appropriate/correct. Other than situations like this it's generally not worth the needless argument to point that out since it's just quicker to (s)he something. Generally neutralizing it like in that edit seems like a good practice outside of that. --Karek^words?! 15:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's technically correct (although outdated - as the linked article section states, the use of gender-neutral he/his has been depreciated by many style guides since the '60s), but when referring to a specific individual (rather than a generic/non-specific individual) it's also ambiguous. I don't suppose there are too many other instances where the gender is both known and not known simultaneously though . Apparently Wikipedia doesn't have a policy on what to in terms of gender-specific pronouns, although the Manual of Style does recommend gender neutral language, and there is an essay (WP:GNL) on the subject.

Anyway, with the rewordings the number of uses of personal pronouns is zero, although currently not quite perfect, so one or two "(s)he"s shouldn't disrupt it too much if they become required for whatever reason.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 18:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversy Section

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)

Yeah just unsourced weasel word loaded opinion. Glad it is gone. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There has been quite a bit of backlash against the "Day One DLC," which actually prompted BioWare and EA to release statements. There was also a lot of discussion about this topic in the gaming community in general. I'm curious as to why there is nothing at all mentioned in the article. There have been quite a few calls for boycott from notable members of gaming communities (TotalBiscuit comes to mind). Whether you agree with these people or not isn't the issue, I feel it's worth mentioning even if it's very briefly. Celynn (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What was here was unsourced junk. If you can provide some stuff we can all evaluate it and then perhaps come up with a wording, if it seems notable. We need stuff from reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:50, 9 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 don't think the poll would be particularly prudent. With the number of copies sold, 70k doesn't prove much (and allegedly the Retake page on Facebook advocated people to create multiple accounts to vote on the poll anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaiusRagnarok (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The poll doesn't reflect wiki standards but not for any of the reasons CaiusRagnarok provides. It's user generated content, which generally doesn't see wikipedia use. Even in cases like this where it's generally accepted as valid data by the majority of third party articles and reports. You'd have to actually use one of those third party articles. --Karek^words?! 16:01, 29 May 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)

FInd reliable sources that we can give appropriate weight. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User Reception

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)

This topic has already come up and as a general issue with game receptions has been encouraged to discussed elsewhere. Although many feel that they aren't a reliable reflection given the heavy bias. Stabby Joe (talk) 03:24, 8 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)

We would need an RS, not some random opinions. Metacritic user ratings are not unlike forum postings, which are not sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:29, 8 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)

A user blog post and the only one made? What makes this user unique? How does that make it a credible source? Further more what does it have to do with Metacritic users even if it was credible? Stabby Joe (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a big backlash to this game due to the day 1 DLC, which was viewed as a major ripoff. Additionally, Forbes theorized that the presence of gay sex in the game played a role in the backlash. Whatever the motivation for the Metacritic score was, it certainly isn't reliably indicative of actual audience reception of the game. For example, the IMDb user score is at 10/10. Swarm ^X 19:42, 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))

I don't think this can be added without a strong source, otherwise it is just fan speculation.Caidh (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And yet, we can say that the game is the final one in the franchise and that Shepard is dead ("completing the story") because a forums post says so? Despite the fact that even though I only bought ME2 and ME3 two weeks ago, I got to see Shepard breath? Are some poor sources just better than others, despite the fact they contradict the actual in-game content? Brianlamere (talk) 17:54, 7 June 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)

Additional speculation (Yes, I admit it's speculation on my part exclusively), this may have contributed to the negative Metacritic user rating in addition to the romance options. 70.75.89.120 (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS WP:OR and WP:RECENTISM Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:57, 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)

These are self published sources, equivalent to forum posts. Please read WP:RS. As well, see the section called 'Metacritic Rants' on this page, this has been discussed already. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:31, 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)

Again, we need WP:RS sources, it is that simple. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:10, 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)

These are opinions and self published, I fail to see how this qualifies as an RS. They are no better than forum posts. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, this is an aggregate opinion collected by metacritic. It is more akin to a survey than a self-published opinion. If you look into articles about political parties you will see lots of survey data all around. Nobody is arguing we should remove those. Meznaric (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Surveys have random samples and attempt to be representative. Metacritic user reviews are those of people who chose to post such reviews. Again, read here, all over this talk page, these are not reliable sources. You have been reverted by two editors and per WP:BRD I am going to revert them again. THere is no consensus to add the material, and it violates policy. You might go see what people say at the video game wikiproject. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck is correct, I believe. The fact that users can add their own scores makes it biased, and not particularly representative of all users. Look here, 941 users went online, went to Metacritic to post their review. How many units did ME3 sell on PS3 alone? 1,5 million? That doesn't say anything really. --Soetermans. T / C 21:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, a lot of users gave the game a zero. A zero out of ten. Are you kidding me? You might be disappointed with the game, you might even dislike it or even hate it, but a zero?! Wasn't there a single thing those users found positive in the entire experience? Not the graphics, the sounds or the cinematics? No, apparently. You see, we really can't have these reviews here. --Soetermans. T / C 21:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In a general sense I see no reason to include them; as has been said, they are are user-generated content, not unlike forum posts. However, there may be good reason to include them within the "controversy" section, as long as we can find a source that references them. A LOT of players seem to have been pissed off by the ending, so, as often happens (although usually in relation to DRM), they have posted 0/10 reviews on Metacritic, 1-star reviews on Amazon etc. The review score in itself is not encyclopædia worthy, but may well be relevant in relation to the game's controversy. Think of it as a manifestation of the player backlash. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy with this compromise. Meznaric (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as it is mentioned in a RS and we are not doing OR or giving undue weight. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, you are aware that metacritic is sourced in all of the other Mass Effect wikipedia articles right? Actually, for that matter, Metacritic has a history of being sourced and passing RS claims in addition to being cited as an RS in other claims. Here's some of that: ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7}. Just because every source doesn't agree doesn't make a generally accepted one less valid. --Karek^words?! 14:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to user submitted reviews on metacritic (et al) not the summaries of professional reviewers' comments. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:16, 30 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)

Yet it does mean it is a reliable source when it's been vetted to be so frequently, which was the whole point. In this case a metacritic bombing or ratings disconnect between user and professional is a relevant subject as well since the User Reception portion is about, in part, this specific conflicting reception. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to cite the fact that a number of user reviews were removed from that amount but it isn't realistic to the content the section is trying to represent to completely deny it's existence.

Dbrodbeck, not representing the user reviews in an article about the user reception that contains the subject of the disconnect between user and professional reviewer reception is simply absurd. Metacritic professional reviews are cited in Reception section yes the section specifically about said conflict isn't allowed to have the equivalent aggregate score from the same aggregator even though that itself has reliably source-able articles about it representing exactly this issue? Like it or not the metacritic user reviews are a relevant portion and representation of the professional vs user reception controversy.¹²³⁴⁵⁶--Karek^words?! 00:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me just set a few things straight here Karek. Your post prior to this one seemed to be saying that use of Metacritic user reviews was justified because:

• other Mass Effect articles do so
• Metacritic has in the past been considered a reliable source for professional reviews (that is what all the linked discussions talk about).

Neither of these arguments hold up. The fact that it has been shown to be a reliable source for professional reviews does not mean it is exempt from Wikipedia's policy on user-generated content (WP:USERGENERATED). The reviews themselves are clearly not in compliance with Wikipedia's user-generated content policy, and thus cannot be included on their own grounds. For comparison, The Guardian's^† website is considered a reliable source for news stories, but the user comments cannot be used since they are user-generated. Also, what exactly are you saying it is a reliable source for? Metacritic in general is a reliable source for aggregate scores and content summaries; the actual reviews are reliable as professional opinions in their own right regardless of whether they are on Metacritic or not. The user reviews however are not. If all you are saying is that they are a reliable source for the average score of those who have posted reviews there, then yes, they are; however, they are not a reliable source for player perception since the user-generated nature of the content means they are subject to Selection bias (i.e. those that are angry are far more likely to write a review in order to air their grievances ("I'm pissed off BioWare/EA, listen to me!") than those who are apathetic or those who enjoyed).

^† I only chose that particular paper because I know it has user comments.

However, no-one seems to be arguing against mentioning them in relation to the backlash, as long as they are mentioned in a reliable secondary source (Metacritic being the primary source), many of which you have just linked to. In that case, actually citing Metacritic may be fine, but only to source the current specific score (not to justify the content's inclusion in its own right). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 15:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Re the last part of your post. Direct inking of the Metacritic user scores would only be OK in a certain context. eg. "On xx April 2012, magazine/website X reported that Mass Effect 3 had a Metcritic score of N stating that this is the lowest user score for a game ever (or some other key point raised by the mag/website). As of (current date) the user score is N "

Pay attention to the middle bit, "this is the lowest score...etc" that is the qualifier for having the current Metacritic user score. Without that it will look like the magazine is being mentioned as a way of showhorning the User score in to the article. - X201 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I know, I got a little confused myself when reading this section at first. I'd thought that the original opposition to this was use of any Metacritic data, the acceptance of that data however lends itself to the issue of the omission of the equivalent user aggregate data in this case. So to clarify my view on this issue is that the Metacritic user score should be included as a portion of the user controversy section, not even a specific number needs to be mentioned(thought with the aforementioned provided sources it could and probably should be) but a degree of separation as referenced in those articles.

Also feel like it's worth noting that WP:USERGENERATED is about article content not particularly aggregated content with an applied third party selection bias assumption(which is like saying allowing people to choose political parties in an internet poll is irrelevant due to variance in levels of outrage when even the opposing party notes it's opposites size, which in this case Bioware/EA has). It's also inappropriate to provide Selection Bias as an argument only applied to one set of aggregated data because it has a larger sample size. More so in the case of gaming media since there's documented issues of exactly that in the allowed review set(which is part of exactly why the Colin Moriarty and Jessica Chobit issues with IGN were previously brought up here it seems, and is relevant to the Child's Play controversy topic too).

All in all the point is that not including this actually skews the neutrality and accuracy of the article and specifically other source's use in the in this case as it's not telling the full story. --Karek^words?! 03:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In this case the only truly valid concern worth omitting portions of this data is a temporal one as it is contextually appropriate and to some degree necessary to put other portions in context. --Karek^words?! 03:13, 4 May 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)

It was professionally reviewed before it came out, not player reviewed as the player reviews started with the early shipped releases. Also, that's what a review is, a weighted recommendation of the game based on the features in the game and the quality issues of note. In this game the issues of note that have impacted game play experience the most have, clearly(it's verifiable even), been the Ending, Day one DLC, and the large number of release bugs in the game(including the major Face Import feature). None of these are mentioned in really any of the professional reviews which should, by itself bring their reliability to readers into question.

Which, for that matter, they aren't RS standard compliant, which is a long established fact in the gaming community. It's a verifiable fact that most of the listed professional review companies used both on the wikipedia page and by metacritic have clear financial incentive, including in more than a few cases direct revenue from the producers, to promote the game and function as promotional venues not as reviewers. If the reason for not including it is Reliability or Neutrality then Game Informer(a retailer) and IGN(see above) need to be taken off the list too at bare minimum since even with the industry standard rule these two have frequently been way more involved than the rest of the game review industry in this particular game's success. --Karek^words?! 15:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 May 2012

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)

I see no point in including an unverified possibility. One of the articles states that Weekes insisted that he did not post the message anyway, and both sources are heavily vitrolic against the ending anyway. CaiusRagnarok (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a level of dispute on the accuracy of that claim unfortunately. There's nothing in the way of actual proof beyond Weekes actually stating it wasn't him. --Karek^words?! 15:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mdann52 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Final" game claim

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")

• Child: Did that all really happen?
• Stargazer: Yes, but some of the details have been lost in time. It all happened so long ago.
• Child: When can I go to the stars?
• Stargazer: One day my sweet.
• Child: What will be there?
• Stargazer: Anything you can imagine. Our galaxy has billions of stars. Each of those stars could have many worlds. Every world could be home to a different form of life. And every life is a special story of its own.
• Child: Tell me another story about the Shepard.
• Stargazer: It's getting late but...ok, one more story.

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)

Shepard's survival only occurs in one variation of the ending, and the scene with the stargazer and the child happen in all endings (save for possibly the worst ending). It may merely mean that the stargazer told the child a part of the story that occurs in the games; the stargazer may merely mean that he'll be talking about another event that happens in the series or Shepard's life before the events of the game. There are rumours of another Mass Effect game being developed, but Mass Effect 3 is the last game in the trilogy that tells the story of Commander Shepard's battle against the Reapers. Given that "canon" in the series is based on the player's decisions and that the state of the galaxy is vastly different in each ending, it's unlikely that there will be a direct sequel. CaiusRagnarok (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't change that to claim it is final, based on a forums post from a non-Bioware person of all things, is silly. Especially when the GM and co-founder of Bioware has stated "This is in addition to our existing plan to continue providing new Mass Effect content and new full games, so rest assured that your journey in the Mass Effect universe can, and will, continue." But hey, if the in-game content itself says there will be more, and the co-founder and GM of Bioware says they plan on "new full games" - that is just not good enough, compared to the high-quality blog and forums post sources. /sarcasm Note also that yes - you can lose the game. That's the case for most games out there. If you lose, play again until you win (ie - you breath/etc). Brianlamere (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

BioWare's owner went on record as saying ME3 was Commander Shepard's last. http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/29/commander-shepard-is-leaving-us-after-mass-effect-3/. - Ktmartell (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Critisism for adding gay characters

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)

Wii U version

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)

edit request 04 Oct 2012

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)

Unless there is a reliable source which specifically sites their departure having anything to do with this game or its controversy, its not relevant to the article.Caidh (talk) 21:13, 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)

No, in other words we don't add things that are WP:OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:22, 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)

Edit request on 22 October 2012

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)

Just offering an opinion here. The retake facebook page is used as a primary source, alongside secondary sources. It's not used to back up any assertions beyond its sheer existence. The secondary sources provide the required context and notability. --81.173.237.215 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ya. What 81. said. Please see WP:PSTS. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

you know what, fuck you wikipedia ppl, I dont know what more sources your need, modders exist, wikipedia gets dumb... bye

Edit request on 29 September 2012

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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Facebook is not a reliable source. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:38, 2 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)

Edit request on 13 November 2012

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)

Spike VGAs

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)

Some fans

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)

Edit request on 28 October 2012

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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I came to request the same, and why is his own twitter account not "a reliable source"? It is straight from the horse's mouth.--37.128.215.221 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that's because for something like this, first party sources will always be biased and therefore cannot really be trusted. I mean suppose there is a wiki article on me that says "this guy is really poor". And then I put out a tweet that says "Lies, I'm a millionaire" that doesn't really make me a millionaire. 202.72.135.193 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

First party sources about personal motivation are not unreliable sources. If they're contradicting a "reliable" source that necessarily draws that source's reliability in question. In this particular case the whole section should be removed, if it hasn't already, as reference to this is thus inappropriate beyond stating that "A Cinema blend article[cite] suggested that Dr. Muzyka's motivation for retiring had to do directly with the fan backlash related to Mass Effect 3 and Star Wars: The Old Republic. This has since been directly refuted by Dr. Muzyka himself through public comments on his personal twitter[cite]". Otherwise the whole thing needs to just go as wikipedia isn't the rumor-mill. --Karek^words?! 14:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2013

Please add this additional credit under the Writer(s) section: "John Dombrow (senior)" Citation: 173.181.87.133 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

An article on the controversy

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)

A polite and simple request.

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 simple matter is that the endings garnered a large amount of controversy. You don't have to agree with them, and personally I don't really care either way, but there was a notable amount of controversy. Enough so that it deserves at least some sort of commentary, and I'd say enough so that a section on it isn't unwarranted. IGN, Kotaku, and heck, even the BBC have made note of the Retakers.

I am willing to concede, though, that there may be bias within the section; if so, that should be fixed. I have yet to closely read the section, but it is an section that is liable to people trying to influence it -- whether to support or complain about the endings. It may also go into unnecessary detail, another thing which is easy to do. From my quick reading of the section, I did not see any "completely false information", but if it's there then, yeah, of course it should be cleaned up. But a complete blanking of the section isn't the way forward here. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2013

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.

• Relative Price is only for ease of reference. The relative amounts are based on the 60 USD at launch cost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlynnWIKI (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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)

Edit request on 26 March 2013

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)

General policy is not to include any fan mods in Wikipedia articles. It can get quite crowded otherwise, and from a purely objective view, it's just the act of one random fan. However, the Happy Ending mod is quite popular from what I've seen, so I wouldn't be surprised if it had been covered by other sources. I'll have a quick search, and if they turn up it might be worth making an exception. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Here and here. Also saw a few brief mentions in other sites, though I didn't see anything really focusing on it, and this German site. Can't actually read German, but I'm pretty sure it's about the mod and the site should be reliable. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Heres a collection of sources: me3explorer(dot)freeforums(dot)org/fobs-mod-in-the-news-t109.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.181.19.129 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Mass Effect series capitalization of alien race names

You're invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illusive Man#Request for comment. czar · · 02:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2013.

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'm pretty sure you're right. Edited, it now reads "while leaving the challenge..." – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ending article

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:

• http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/06/20/mass-effect-3-series-former-lead-writer-reveals-original-ending-ideas/
• http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-19-ex-bioware-writer-discusses-dropped-ideas-for-mass-effect-trilogy-ending
  • http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-19-mass-effect-3-ending-bioware-admits-fans-needed-more-closure
• http://www.shacknews.com/article/80327/mass-effects-abandoned-cyclical-ending
• http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/03/bioware-responds-to-mass-effect-ending-complaints-as-protest-continues-to-grow/
  • http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/03/protests-over-ending-of-mass-effect-3-show-fan-investment-in-story-control/
  • http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/06/extended-cut-provides-much-needed-epilogue-for-mass-effect-3/
• http://www.gamesradar.com/bioware-defends-mass-effect-3-ending-welcomes-feedback-dlc/
• http://kotaku.com/5898743/mass-effect-3s-ending-disrespects-its-most-invested-players
  • http://kotaku.com/5895369/why-im-glad-bioware-might-change-mass-effect-3s-ending-for-the-fans
  • http://kotaku.com/5892676/why-mass-effect-3s-ending-was-so-terrible
  • http://kotaku.com/5892074/why-mass-effect-3s-ending-doesnt-need-changing-spoilers
  • http://kotaku.com/5991791/one-last-crazy-theory-about-mass-effect-3s-ending
  • http://kotaku.com/5908224/my-mass-effect-3-ending-lasted-34-hours-it-was-wonderful
• http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/why-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3-was-satifying-and-worthy-of-the-series-mass
• http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/19/whats-right-with-mass-effect-3s-ending/
• http://www.1up.com/news/pros-cons-mass-effect-3
• http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/03/mass-effect-3-ending-petition/
• http://www.gamesradar.com/mass-effect-3-ending-why-it-vital-future-health-games-bioware-do-not-change-it/
• http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/03/16/bioware-to-discuss-mass-effect-3-endings.aspx
  • http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/03/30/why-changing-the-mass-effect-3-ending-is-a-mistake.aspx
• http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-04-17-mass-effect-3s-ending-controversy-is-actually-good-for-the-industry

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)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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:

• http://www.examiner.com/computers-in-denver/mass-effect-3-review-review

  Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If 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 ^Notify_Offline 23:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau notations are misleading

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)

Trimming the Controversy Section

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.

• The Patrick Weekes controversy is sort of minor and given 2 full paragraphs, when at the end of the day it's just one employees opinion. I think this can be trimmed down to a sentence or two.
• The last paragraph is more or less speculation, the departure of the two founders can't really be tied to this particular game.

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)

Locked out

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)

It depends on the quality of the source, first of all. Secondly, I should point out that the source is using the term "locked out" but that does not appear to the Patrick Weekes quote, so that's an editorial perspective. I also removed the names of the heads since it's already apparent within the article and I think controversy sections should be trimmed where there's Undue weight. JRT (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

We rely on our secondary sources to interpret our primary sources for us, I don't think it is right for us to second guess them without reason. FWIW, the article links to another article with literal citations which support the interpretation. I don't think we need to shield people from criticism, it's clear enough already that this is an opinion of Weekes. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you look over my earlier edit to this section a few weeks back, it was to reduce the amount of WP:UNDUE Undue weight to the article, and there's even a policy that WP:CRIT sections are frowned about in general. If anything, we should use the relevant quote from Weekes without adding the interpretation of others, so I saw nothing wrong with keeping out the term "Locked Out", since that's an interpretation that has a more negative connotation than what really happened. That's also why I removed the names of the two heads since the article already states them and including it in there makes it appear to be directed at them, sort of editorializing the article. JRT (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 controversy

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)

I'm not sure if describing something that was clearly a major controversy as "fan reception" is really all that neutral, it sounds like a non-neutral euphemism to me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think 'major controversy' is a bit of an overstatement. I thin there was controversy around the game in some circles. I think that the reception reflected that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Marijin. I wasn't vouching for it to be called "major controversy" that's just weird. I'm saying let's just leave it at "controversy". Agreed everyone? Osh33m (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Open world?

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120513021759/http://www.gamesthirst.com:80/2012/03/25/mass-effect-3-writer-accuse-casey-hudson-of-going-it-alone-bioware-stays-silent/ to http://www.gamesthirst.com/2012/03/25/mass-effect-3-writer-accuse-casey-hudson-of-going-it-alone-bioware-stays-silent/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay

The first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section has nothing to do with gameplay. SharkD  Talk  08:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://comic-con.gamespot.com/story/6324863/comic-con-2011-mass-effect-3-hands-on-preview-biotics-and-branching-upgrades
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.buzzfocus.com/2011/07/21/mass-effect-3-star-wars-public-gaming-opens-up-comic-con/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geek.pikimal.com/2011/08/16/new-mass-effect-3-gamescon-trailer-reveals-gameplay/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ingame.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/10/8256632-you-can-play-mass-effect-3-with-your-friends
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mmomfg.com/2011/12/19/mass-effect-3-composers-1219/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://beefjack.com/news/mass-effect-3-has-40000-lines-of-dialogue/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/25660/Mass-Effect-3-Features-Reversable-FemShep-Cover
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/222111/mass-effect-3-fan-alert-you-can-still-destroy-blonde-femshep/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/special_feature/most-anticipated-2011/day-5/index.html?page=3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/news/mass-effect-3-falsely-advertised-says-bbb-6371157
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719193458/http://www.screwattack.com/news/bioware-and-ea-cleared-me3-advertising-kerfuffle to http://www.screwattack.com/news/bioware-and-ea-cleared-me3-advertising-kerfuffle

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323234238/http://whatculture.com/gaming/mass-effect-3-commander-shepard-last-stand.php to http://whatculture.com/gaming/mass-effect-3-commander-shepard-last-stand.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130304224702/http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/8481789/1 to http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/8481789/1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/7352856/10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131040113/http://www.1up.com/news/mass-effect-3-multiplayer-impact-single-player-story-outcome to http://www.1up.com/news/mass-effect-3-multiplayer-impact-single-player-story-outcome
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68Uy34ScJ?url=http://www.1up.com/reviews/mass-effect-3-ps3-xbox360 to http://www.1up.com/reviews/mass-effect-3-ps3-xbox360

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Feedback is welcome

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mass Effect 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 14:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• where civilization is invaded by a highly advanced machine race of synthetic-organic starships - would be great if the name of these starships is given.
• such as third-person shooter combat with an emphasis on cover - I would rephrase it to "such as cover-based third-person shooter gameplay.
• For example, the Adept class is proficient in mental powers - mental power? What is that? Telekinesis?
• Overall, role-playing elements in Mass Effect 3 are more intricate than those in Mass Effect 2 & While the weapon and power systems in Mass Effect 3 work similarly to those in Mass Effect 2 - The gameplay section should be self-contained and you shouldn't expect readers to know what happen in ME2. That mean you shouldn't draw comparison with it.
• The gameplay section is very neat. Nice job.
• Karpyshyn departed from the series after Mass Effect 2 to work on Star Wars: The Old Republic - not exactly related to this game.
• Other major packs include From Ashes, which adds a new squad member named Javik - Should highlight that Javik is a Prothean.
• Omega, which involves retaking the space station with Aria T'Loak - who is she?
• Too much quotes in the reception section. They need to be paraphased.
• GameFocus felt that the voice work and visuals in Mass Effect 3 represented some of the best in the industry - GameFocus is not a reliable source.
• Source 7, 8, 13, 15, 24, 27, 28, 38, 68, 75, 82, 88, 90, 95, 100, 104, 106, 108, 151, 162, 165, 166 are unreliable/not recognized as eliable sources.

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)

First off, I want to thank you for taking the time to review the article. I really appreciate your feedback and think it has significantly improved the piece. For the most part, I changed everything that you recommended. Here are a few comments:

• In my humble opinion, I think it is useful to know that someone of Karpyshyn's stature left the series and did not contribute to ME3. Unless you have a strong objection, could I leave that line in?
• I tried to paraphrase the quotes in Reception as best I could. The only quotes left are single words that I feel are important in their phrasing. Please let me know if you still feel that the section needs an overhaul.

If you notice that anything else needs changing, I will try to knock it out tomorrow or Monday. If we go over seven days, could I get an extension? I feel like we are on the goal line and would hate to fail the article before we run in for a touch down.--Ktmartell (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I won't fail a GA nomination as long as someone is working on it. Feel free to take your time. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

How does everything look now? I think I've finished everything I had on the agenda. Does anything else need expansion or revision? Thanks again!--Ktmartell (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The article looks great. Mass Effect 3 is now a GA. Congrats! AdrianGamer (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ending controversy

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)

No objections from me. Thanks for doing this!--Ktmartell (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Plot

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)

Yes, the plot section is getting a bit too long. See WP:VG/PLOT. OceanHok (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I've trimmed the plot section as you have suggested. Haleth (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks friends. I've already wasted some time today tweaking other parts of the article, but will take a look at the plot summary later this week and adjust if I still see anything that could be considered excessive. Please let me know if you would rather I not.--Ktmartell (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I began making some revisions today. I tried to stick to what I mentioned above (less character and setting information, removal of references to Shepard and the crew/Normandy). I also made the difficult decision to remove the names of Victus and Linron, two characters who have almost no characterization and serve virtually no purpose otherwise than to move the plot forward. If this is controversial, let me know and I will add them back, but I am being a bit bold right now in an effort to trim this thing down. I also want to mention that I am seriously considering removing the Citadel coup paragraph, as it is only a couple of sentences long and frankly has almost no bearing on the main plot outside of introducing Kai Leng. Would be interested to hear peoples' thoughts.--Ktmartell (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'm done. I stayed bold and removed a decent chunk of good but (IMO) ultimately unnecessary information, such as the Citadel coup, which frankly doesn't impact the main plot that much. I also noticed that character information had been moved out of Characters and into Plot, when my understanding is that it should always be the other way around (provide detailed character information in Characters so you don't need to clutter Plot). I hope that these changes helped the article and prevented it from becoming overly detailed. I think that we should all err on starting a discussion in the future if anyone wants to expand the Plot section.--Ktmartell (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)  Done

I've also stayed bold and added one sentence mentioning the Cerberus coup, but removed another superfluous line about Tali's suicide, which is already covered in her own article. It is a major plot point in the narrative, but doesn't need to be detailed any further. Haleth (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It looks great!--Ktmartell (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)