Nerd Reactor takes a look at how the controversial Mass Effect 3 ending may have been ruined by EA and not BioWare.
The latest game in BioWare’s fantasy role-playing series went through ten years of development turmoil
In early November, on the eve of the crucial holiday shopping season, staffers at the video-game studio BioWare were feeling optimistic. After an excruciating development cycle, they had finally released their latest game, Dragon Age: The Veilguard, and the early reception was largely positive. The role-playing game was topping sales charts on Steam, and solid, if not spectacular, reviews were rolling in.
Its easy they called the die hard fans people in their nerd caves who will buy anything and then went woke to reach modern audiences....insulting the nerds in their caves along the way showing utter contempt for their fan base. very hapy it failed and any company who insults their fan base and treat their customers with contempt and insults, in future, i also hope fail.
It’s disappointing but not surprising to see what's happening with Dragon Age: The Veilguard and the broader situation at BioWare. The layoffs are tragic — no one wants to see talented developers lose their jobs. But when studios repeatedly create games that alienate their own fanbase, outcomes like this become unfortunately predictable.
There’s a pattern we’re seeing far too often: beloved franchises are revived, only to be reshaped into something almost unrecognizable. Changes are made that no one asked for, often at the expense of what originally made these games special. Then, when long-time fans express concern or lose interest, they’re told, “This game might not be for you.” But when those same fans heed that advice and don’t buy the game, suddenly they're labeled as toxic, sexist, bigoted, or worse.
Let’s be clear: the overwhelming majority of gamers have no issue with diversity, LGBTQ+ representation, or strong female leads. In fact, some of the most iconic characters in gaming — like Aloy, Ellie, or FemShep — are proof that inclusivity and excellent storytelling can and do go hand in hand. The issue arises when diversity feels performative, forced, or disconnected from the narrative — when characters or themes are inserted not to serve the story, but to satisfy a corporate DEI checklist. Audiences can tell the difference.
When studios chase approval from a vocal minority that often doesn’t even buy games — while simultaneously dismissing loyal fans who actually do — they risk not just the success of individual titles, but the health of their entire studio. Telling your core customers “don’t buy it if you don’t like it” is not a viable business strategy. Because guess what? Many of us won’t. And when the game fails commercially, blaming those very fans for not supporting it is both unfair and self-defeating.
Gamers aren’t asking for less diversity or less progress. We’re asking for better writing, thoughtful character development, and a respect for the franchises we’ve supported for decades. When you give people great games that speak to them — whether they’re old fans or new players — they will show up. But if you keep making games for people who don’t play them, don’t be surprised when those who do stop showing up
I thought the writing and character development were fine. Sometimes things just dont resonate with people.
EA just hosted its quarterly financial conference call, and its executives have been asked to comment about the recent price hikes for games.
Today, Electronic Arts announced its financial results for the fourth quarter of its fiscal year 2025, alongside the full year.
Split Fiction has sold nearly 4 million copies, and the next battlefield is confirmed for a release by March 2026 with a reveal this Summer.
"The ending to me was brilliant, but there was still unanswered questions and a lot of grey area."
In media, trying to persuade your reader of one thing and contradicting yourself is the worst thing you can do. A great ending doesn't have a grey area of the old games, but answers the question and thickens the plot. Not only answers half the questions.
Unfortunately, this would actually make sense. That where Mass Effect 3 ends isn't the actual conclusion of the story.
they screwed us all over, what about the collector base in ME2? best i can tell is it makes the human reapers eye a different color in ME3.
and what about if you kill samara in ME2? oh bioware forgot about samaras last words "you will regret that decision" morinth should have been in the game not just another banshee enemy because they forgot to actually give her a story.
so many important elements from the past games hold no bearing in ME3.
the ending was good but come on, the A B C pick a path sucked, they were all the same, there were too many plot holes, and all our choices had zero impact on the outcome.
whoever signed off on that ending should be shot....then fired and fall from the top of a bus, strike several passing cars and eventually fall into the power turbine of a bio-mass recycling facility.
The ending was done in the last moment and it is completely disconnected from the rest of the game.
It was a rushed and careless job, there is no way to deny this.
What upsets me most is there isn't even a good pick-up point for future games any more. ME4+ could not possibly incorporate your ME3 end 'choice' because each of them completely changed the entire galaxy.
Then....Then I heard they're thinking of making ME4 DURING ME3, which is possibly the least exciting idea this decade. "Hai gais! Let's put some other new hero in at the same time and pretend there was another important bad thing at the same time as the Reapers that Shepard was just too high on Garrus' calibrations to notice!"