Originally Posted by DarthParametric
I still find it mind boggling that he talks about going into a project set up as a trilogy from the start with no overarching plot mapped out, just making crap up as they go along, like it's a good thing. That's precisely the reason ME3 ended up the way it did.
As much as I enjoyed the Mass Effect games (to a degree), this is one of the reasons I don't consider this one of the best (gaming) trilogies of all time, as some gaming sites dare to claim. If even the ending of the series was subject to change and wasn't set in stone from an early period, it doesn't deserve that kind of praise.
You often hear of serialized TV shows having a concept to start with, a begin point and a clear vision on how it should end. Often, the creator only knows these things for certain and has a general idea of how to get from point A to B. Some ideas will change, or be expanded upon, but you're pretty sure that it at least will make sense within the rules of the created universe. What happens when you don't have the ending planned out even in a general way is what you get with Mass Effect, where changes and additions (Cerberus in ME2, for example) feel forced and the setup for the grand finale needs to be explained during the finale