Kotaku: The Story Behind ME:A's Troubled Five-Year Development

Drack is also one of the few really well written characters in my opinion. Maybe the only one, come to think of it. He's got a real story arc of when he reveals what about himself. You really have to earn his trust to get to the bottom of his life story. I never got the same feeling with any of the other characters.

I'm replaying the trilogy and I agree with you on Kaiden. I never considered him a love interest, but I chose him over Ashley once (in Virmire) and I regretted it. I liked his character even less in ME3 because of his dialogue about our friendship. I was like, "Dude... you were with me since Eden Prime and you're bit**in' out now because 
Cerberus brought me back? Really?" At least with Ashley, we banged. I'll give her the next morning awkward glance and put up with hers because that's how things go. By the way, my current and last run in LIs are: Liara, Liara (through DLC) and Tali and then Ashley since she's really available. Jack and Kelly are too young to be spoiled by the likes of my Shepard, Paragon or not.

Of course! But they need to work on their timing if they ever want me to take them seriously. All I see is a guy trying to make sure MEA sinks. Until he proves me wrong, that's the impression I get. I believe the logic of the articles, but I prefer honesty without the added feeling of intent to stir shit.

So take it or leave it. They guy tells a comprehensive story. I'm saying that as a journalist. I don't see any agenda, only a report on what went wrong. There's certainly no agenda involved with any journalist unless some Bioware employee came over to kick their puppy on the lawn. Mind you, I'm talking about journalists, not some random youtubers having a field day to post memes in order for some direly needed ad clicks.

Very simple question here. If you are working for a company, would you go public and being named when spilling the beans?

Journalism is based on quoting and being protected in using anonymous sources. Otherwise you wouldn't get any story.

So why should i believe that is true and not just a fancy story created by the article writter when he can't come up with any kind of proof that what he is saying is the truth.


You Don't need to reveal your sources but bring evidence that what they are saying is real, that is true journalism. Anything else is just either slander or a clickbait.

Because you obviously don't know the press laws. Slandering is an offense and not protected by the freedom of the press. So if this article was untrue, not only would they have released their PR department all guns blazing. There would also be a law suit by now.

That makes absolutely no sense. MEA is not even 4 months old and it is not the main focus? This is Mass Effect we are talking about, not some no name IP. Anthem most likely will come out late 2018 with DA4 coming out in late 2019. The rest of the year should still belong to MEA in some way if this game was truely a financial success.

A $$$ focused company like EA just does not stop pumping out content for products thag sell well. If MEA really is a financial success, EA would not just simply say MEA isnt a focus. No, they will ride the success of MEA all the way to the bank and milk it with DLCs and make it pubically known early on that MEA has a strong life after launch.

What you suggest just is not within the character of EA.

Because Bioware always had a habit of answering every single bad thing it's written about then...Or wait they don't!

Maybe because that would generate even more clickbaits.

Well, not really commenting on this particular article but more generally.

One major reason for serious career journalists not to just make stuff up and then cite "anonymous sources" is that their reputation is on the line as well. If later they are indeed proven wrong, it's a hit on their reputation as well. So while sure, there are journalists who do make stuff up and lie, just because sources are anonymous doesn't automatically make everything a lie.

That's generally speaking (and especially when looking at articles by rather well known journalists in the press). I don't know/never heard of the person who wrote that Kotaku article about ME:A's development, so no clues there. However, I do believe the article because it fits perfectly with everything that we have heard about BW and ME:A over the years of its development and it also fits with the strengths and weaknesses of the game they finally shipped. So either the author did a pretty good job of fitting a lie to all those indications and made up some source on top or they really do have sources. The latter seems more likely because if the former was the case, why not just write a more speculative article about the same thing? You could basically write the exact same article with the same "clickbait" headline but without the danger of being exposed as a liar later.

As for evidence, what kind of evidence to you expect, other than what we've got? All the personal changes we've seen mesh with this, so do the contradictory statements (like the stuff about 100s of planet,etc.) and the game itself does too? If they can hardly get people to comment, let alone to name their own names, how do you expect them to get their hands on actual "hard evidence"?

Yes, it is. Since it's not the lack of sources but the lack of named sources. Every intern working in journalism would know the difference and why there are numerous laws protecting sources from being named.

That's makebelief as opposed to knowing how things are done when it comes to company or political secrets.