Its pretty disturbing how we got the option to punch that reporter in every single game of the original trilogy. Especially when you're playing as male shepard. A special forces soldier attacking a female civilian is somehow considered hilarious by much of the fanbase. And that's a pretty terrifying thought. Please don't indulge these violence-against-women promoting psychopaths Bioware. You're supposed to be better than that..

people like you are the reason this place is being closed down. the freedom people like you have are taken for granted when threads like this are made. the mere fact that you feel as though your sexist, biased opinions matter to others is a pretty terrifying thought. You are unable to comprehend the virtues of reciprocity. and the fact that moderators have become your enablers is also worrying. 

perhaps its for the best that these forums go away.

i'll make this short and simple. if ppl on this forum are a substantial example of what BW fans are, then BW fans should have very little say in the direction of ME. because ppl here are utter idiots.

thanks.

WHY DON'T PEOPLE PLAY THE SIMS?

why dont you make a valid point?

the hair from DAI is utter rubbish for a game of that level. MEA doesnt look much better based on femryder's hair.

Heh, nice to see some things haven't changed 'round here.

For me, I'm of the opinion that the companions should wear whatever they want on the ship. I don't think that Miranda is overly sexualized due to her catsuit (nor the butt-cam, it just looks awkward) or Jack because of the boob straps. When I first saw Jack, my first thought wasn't "OMG! She's wearing so little she's sexualized!" My first thought was, "Wow. Okay, if she can dress like that in this setting, she's dangerous." If that's what they are comfortable in the ship, then that's awesome. I also think that those looks would be okay by me on certain planets (I.e Virmire before it got nuked.) Especially for biotics.
 

i was hyped for EA Play.

that's about it, yea.

I didn't know SJWs went to 4chan. Your kind is typically mocked there.

you know what the funny thing about this is? 

just today i posted this

 

 

lol i have more to say but i'll stop there. i dont want SJWs and white knights showing up out of nowhere.

 

no srs. say one thing that's different and they'll be rite there in the thread waiting to respond.

>your personality will make your skin and thin catsuit bulletproof and spaceworthy

 

>mfw

 

lel its truly why the outfits were the way they were.

if you have to feel like you're getting tickled in a hurricane about it well,

woop for you i suppose.

^ a valid point in addition to my own.

dont see a problem with the last name other than well, if the protagonist's family is also in the same room and someone says Ryder. at that point i think the protagonist's title will be used.

revealing makes me think of like skimpy armor that hardly covers anything. is that what the OP means? or does the OP mean stuff like miranda's outfit when she/he says "revealing."

anyway,

if its revealing, does it count as armor? 

does it have to be revealing to be seen as sexualised?

is sexualised armor the real problem here? ala miranda's entire ass printing out. that's sexualised yes. but that covered her body entirely. as opposed to this

either way i hate the labels of revealing/sexualised/practical. and i love the way outfits were done in me2. i loved jack's and miranda's outfits because they 100% suited the character and the personality.

and i think that's the way outfits should be done going forward.

Like constantly disconnecting on the council in ME1? Yeah, that might be interesting if there were consequences for acting like an a-hole to people, especially when dealing with your bosses or quest givers.

yea but taking away content as a consequence (OP said NPC not giving you a quest as a consequence) is not the way to do this. 

lol.

lets not get into the endings shall we.

this was the best decision they could make considering *how things ended*.

there is alot more they can still do with the franchise which I assume they want to turn into a halo-esque one (by halo i mean the story and depth and etc, not the gameplay).

lol i have more to say but i'll stop there. i dont want SJWs and white knights showing up out of nowhere.

no srs. say one thing that's different and they'll be rite there in the thread waiting to respond.

i wouldnt call it odd.

i'd call it consequential.

i did. prior to e3.

stopped after e3. mostly because of all the nice things we saw concerning ME:A

but i also got busy with work.

People didn't simply voice their dislike over the endings. They threw a tantrum for months until Bioware gave into their demands. They made three different colored cupcakes and mailed them off to Bioware. In addition to donating to charity in hopes that Bioware would change the ending. As well as flinging vitriol at the developers every chance they got. Even after releasing a free DLC to pacify these people it wasn't enough. The fans didn't want to compromise. They didn't want to meet Bioware halfway with the Extended Cut. They wanted everything to be fixed their way, or not at all. Why do you think people are still here talking about all the issues with the ending? They weren't fixed the way exactly the way they wanted it to be. 

 

Technically your decisions affected how the third and final chapter of the trilogy plays out. That's what they sold you and that's what you got. So your decisions weren't meaningless.

 

Even the final cutscene isn't as simple as A,B,C or red, green, blue. It might look that way if you don't think about it. Same goes for the Reaper logic. It may seem completely silly that organics create synthetics which will then destroy organics every 50,000 years. That is an oversimplification of what he was talking about though. Same goes for calling everything in the ending space magic. That would be the kind of interpretation from someone who doesn't think about the story and oversimplifies things to fuel hate. 

 

That is the sort of person who should rightly be ignored for not being constructive enough. 

Let me stop you at the very first paragraph. If bioware gave into demands, we wouldnt be here discussing this. So maybe you're the one who needs to think before they write a response instead of contradicting yourself. Indicating that fans have to meet the company halfway is acknowledging that the fans complaints are valid to an extent and the company was moving to rectify it to an extent. This is again contradicting yourself when saying that complaints about the ending are void, as you've said previously.

"Technicality" is not a premise upon which the previous games worked. See ME1 and maybe even 2. You mean to tell me that the climax of the trilogy was intended to work on a "technicality." this says to me that " well it doesnt rly, but it kinda does." which translates into a poor job of making your decisions matter the most when it was required the most which is how Hudson claimed to envision it.

"...we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C."

It is apparent that you do not understand how much of a melded mess ME3 content was warped into after weekes left. The consequences are buried in how the DLC content was released. Which DLC were actual content created for release prior to the game and which were content that was ripped from the game? content that was suppose to bring to life what hudson was actually talking about above.

...

no ABC ending? ofc not. because hudson said we wouldnt get that. instead we receive the RGB endings. lets have a look at the ME3 endings below.

ta-da! can you count the number of endings there? it is a simply yes/no question. there is nothing complicated to it. This is what was sold to me. this is what I played. when you call it an "oversimplification" of the endings that's about as ambiguous and a poor excuse as one can get. and for you people who act so high-and-mighty towards the rest of us, you all have some of the lamest responses ever to questions and concerns.

"It may seem completely silly that organics create synthetics which will then destroy organics every 50,000 years"

the catalyst is an a$$pull. call it space magic. call it the river nile. call it the artic hole. the catalyst was introduced as a component for the crucible to work. what it was eventually turned into in the last 5 minutes of the game though, is beyond ridiculous. here's a description of it from the wikia.

"The Catalyst, also known as the Intelligence, is an ancient artificial intelligence that resides within the Citadel. It embodies the collective consciousness and memories of the Reapers, and thus countless ancient civilizations."

and here is what the catalyst tells you

i have a better name for it. Horrible retconned writing.

you high-and-mighty people always jump to the conclusion that when someone dislikes something and is trying to prove their point about it, they are fueling hate and channeling their life's disappointment and all sorts of other lovely stereotypes you ppl like to conjure. I honestly didnt know that having a different opinion was the equivalent of this. but whatever. you real MVP BSNers are the ones who can some how envision how it works rite? because it is you ppl who constantly accuse others of this.

but the real people who are guilty of not thinking at all are the ones who wrote that ending. had they not stripped out useful and well written content like the leviathans to be used as money-making DLC instead; had they made actual proper use of the one prothean they found alive. had they not rushed the game and instead taken the time to pass the endings through focus groups and quality control to see how it would have been received, we would not be having this discussion now. but no. all that mattered is that they collected their monies. pre-orders and otherwise. personally I find EA to blame here as well (being the "task masters" that they are. they're kinda one and the same now though so eh.) so I'm not making that mistake again with ME:A especially as we have such little to go on atm.

and they boldly stood by their decision. so haughty about their "artistic integrity."

that is what you people are choosing to defend.

Looks kinda like a truck shop/trading post.

 

 

Same kind of environment as this by the color and fungi and stuff:

 

the figure closer to the MASS EFFECT logo (not the one that appears to be climbing). that looks kinda quarian to me.

    It gives me so many Omega vibes...     

would like this more times if i could.

From what I've read, they stand by the core game they made and were quite proud of their accomplishment. You guys? Not so much. 

they are the developers of the game and are a division of its publishers. if they made a turd on a plate they'd stand by it. there's no commendation to be handed to them there for that. they had to. and its quite ridiculous to reproach people who simply voice their dislike of the endings.

i stand by the core game they made. because the core game in no way entails the last 15 minutes of me3. thanks to their lack of narrative coherence everything you did up to that point, was useless, meaningless, and by the biggest retconned space magic writing ever, were narrowed down into - not ABC endings which Hudson had said would not be in the game - it was channeled into the RGB endings.

apart from that everything else was wonderful.

Hey, I appreciate you finally added your two credits. It was an interesting read! That's a post that helps me understand where you're coming from, unlike some of the previous ones. However, the problem is that, whether true or not, I don't think it explains why the ending is good. I mean, I may analyse a whatever piece of fiction to death, break it all the way down to all its -isms, literary elements, tropes and what have you, but that alone doesn't mean quality. Particularly if at face value - and I know you're going to dislike me going there - there are things like the ridiculous evac scene, magical waves of light inserting DNA into people, the contradiction with the first game, etc. In a franchise that takes place in cold, brutal reality otherwise. If it looks botched when you take it literally - and judging by the reaction of so many fans it did and still does - then some higher meaning, if it is even there, means little. I'm not going to argue whether you're right or wrong because I have no proof for or against it and I'm cool with that. What I know is that a lot of players aren't going to drop reality, even if it barely makes sense - and you can see it even from the posts of the people who defend the ending here - and actively look for some sort of higher meaning and appreciate it just for the ropes behind it all. I think in the ideal scenario, there would be both higher meaning present as well as an ending without plotholes and contradictions (which have been explained into painful detail throughout this very thread). Because those are not mutually exclusive.

no it doesnt explain why it was good at all. it is a pathetic attempt to retroactively give meaning to what was done. You dont ever write like that. Never ever. The catalyst is the biggest a$$pull i've read and i mean i read manga dude, i've seen the kinda crap some mangaka pull out from nowhere that'll just make you shake your head and laugh.

 And some how expecting what she says to have any meaning to anyone what isn't a far right hard core conservative.

The following is a good example of what you mean.

The original ending is what Bioware wanted to do. The extended cut is a compromise between what they wanted to do and what people needed to like it.

The original ending fits perfectly to the structure :

-first, the whole structure (in the macrostructure, the trilogy, and in the microstructure, Mass Effect 3) is more like a spiral (2/3, with an acceleration in the third part, and it goes faster and faster).

-second, Mac walters and casey Hudson talked about the high level of the catalyst scene. This notion is very important to understand the ending. When people refuse the "high level" (I'm not talking about you, I actually don't know what you think about it), it's the whole ending that they refuse. The catalyst scene is supposed to be a higher perception of things, which means that we are no longer in development of basic explanations, that's why the ending is based on implicit and paradoxes. It had to go against our perception of things. And it had to stay on this higher level, not to go back on the human scale of perception, that's why the narration goes higher and higher till it gets to the meta level (the stargazer scene with the idea that the game is a story told by someone).

-third, the writers and developers are not the stupid guys some people here want them to be. They know what breaking a cycle means. The cycle is determinism. But they also know that narration is determinism (when you tell a story you force the audience to follow you. Bioware know that when you give a choice, there is actually no freedom, you force the player to choose a path that was created.). So breaking the cycle is supposed to be creating freedom. But freedom isn't determinism. So when you impose a narration and the player is supposed to be free, there is a contradiction. That's why most of the (good) stories about breaking cycles do not have epilogue (I used snowpiercer and Bloodborne as very good examples). That's why they wanted "speculation for everyone", because they know that the game is a personal experience and the apex is the final choice and the consequences.

 

That's basically why the original ending had this form. Sure, because it goes against the habit of reading of most people, it created that reaction from a lot of people.

slurp slurp.

The original ending is what Bioware wanted to do. The extended cut is a compromise between what they wanted to do and what people needed to like it.

The original ending fits perfectly to the structure :

-first, the whole structure (in the macrostructure, the trilogy, and in the microstructure, Mass Effect 3) is more like a spiral (2/3, with an acceleration in the third part, and it goes faster and faster).

-second, Mac walters and casey Hudson talked about the high level of the catalyst scene. This notion is very important to understand the ending. When people refuse the "high level" (I'm not talking about you, I actually don't know what you think about it), it's the whole ending that they refuse. The catalyst scene is supposed to be a higher perception of things, which means that we are no longer in development of basic explanations, that's why the ending is based on implicit and paradoxes. It had to go against our perception of things. And it had to stay on this higher level, not to go back on the human scale of perception, that's why the narration goes higher and higher till it gets to the meta level (the stargazer scene with the idea that the game is a story told by someone).

-third, the writers and developers are not the stupid guys some people here want them to be. They know what breaking a cycle means. The cycle is determinism. But they also know that narration is determinism (when you tell a story you force the audience to follow you. Bioware know that when you give a choice, there is actually no freedom, you force the player to choose a path that was created.). So breaking the cycle is supposed to be creating freedom. But freedom isn't determinism. So when you impose a narration and the player is supposed to be free, there is a contradiction. That's why most of the (good) stories about breaking cycles do not have epilogue (I used snowpiercer and Bloodborne as very good examples). That's why they wanted "speculation for everyone", because they know that the game is a personal experience and the apex is the final choice and the consequences.

 

That's basically why the original ending had this form. Sure, because it goes against the habit of reading of most people, it created that reaction from a lot of people.

i'm not sure what's worse. thinking that the ending was a rushed botched mistake or thinking that the ending was a "well-thought out, story driven, plot conclusive," intended piece of "art".

=|. this is tough.

My sympathies are whole-heartedly with the developers whom have spent over a decade using all their creative talents to make something that millions of people find joy in, every single day, rather than the people who went on a high of negativity and deaththreats and lawsuits because apparently they didn't get the ending to a videogame that they think they wanted.
The internet seems to have turned people into sociopaths. At this point I think some people just liked the idea of the folks at Bioware being a surrogate for all the disappointments in their own Lives.

cool silly story. doesnt change what i think. and the last sentence is basically the punchline of this forum. you dislike something and all of a sudden you're channeling your life's disappointment into Bioware. LOL.

hooray for SJWs and white knights. the interwebs would never be the same without you.

i can already imagine the people who pre-ordered playing the game and then coming to the forums to talk about it ala me3.

i was in deep despair when that launched. because my pre-ordered copy was still on its way while people had already finished the game and was complaining about the endings.

meanwhile, i was like...welp.. =|

teehee i was just saying in another thread that i wont purchase a copy for a long time after release.

http://forum.bioware...ead/?p=20337443

how ironic.

Hm. Does "making ME:A great" and releasing some general news about the game have to be mutally exclusive?

apparently =|

you know. i'm pretty happy that things happened the way they did. also my experience with ME3 and DA:I has made me learn alot where Bioware/EA games are concerned. 

I managed to purchase DA:I in December 2014 in preparation for my holiday gaming. However it was a week until I actually got into the game, and i couldnt believe the amount of bugs it had. Ofc, the refund period had expired.

fast forward december 2015 when i decided to take another turn into the game. managed to play it and enjoyed it for a while. didnt finish it though.

will look to my library or other games, before i ever look to get a copy of ME:A.

Ironic how the OP is the same person who made the casual sexual encounters thread
 

what if bioware did the casual sex encounters, and then i buy the game, play as the male PC and go around having casual sex with males and/or females? Would i be Geralt Ryder then?

also, what if i play as the female PC and go around having casual sex with males and/or females? would this infringe upon the territory for which TW3 is receiving hate by the OP? or would this be accepted because its NOT A MALE who is carrying out these actions?

lmao

I'm going to say the same thing I always say to remarks like that. Yeah I know that this is a bait thread, but I've seen this said in 100% seriousness before.

Don't play the game and ignore it if it bothers you. BioWare is going to do what they wish. They've never been sexist at all, and I don't think they'd start now. I don't think CDPR is sexist either, nor the writer. Especially due to prostitutes. I mean, really? C'mon. If you want to fly the equality flag, start by being accepting that some media is going to be offensive to some and not for everyone. TW is one of those cases. I don't begrudge their success either.

Also, don't make threads just to bait fans of TW. I'm not a TW fan. I have no interest in the games due to some minor issues with the lore. I'm not bringing them up here because it's not worth the debate. However, I don't sit on the BSN and complain about those issues. If I felt strongly enough about it, I'd take it up with CDPR. It doesn't phase me, because despite the talk on the BSN I find the game series incredibly easy to ignore. I think I'm just burned out and passed the point of giving a flying pyjak about the whole debate.

Besides, there is a lot of reasonable fans of TW3 that are far more interested in how the game handled the sidequests. I pay attention to them, despite some of my issues in the story and lore for the TW series.

yup. i actually tried TW3 and refunded it cuz the camera made me sick. doesnt change the fact that alot of people love the game due to its questing and overall freedom. it is immersion on a whole other level. 

i am fairly certain that Bioware knows how to handle immersion. imo that was never a problem in the original ME trilogy. nor DA:I for that matter.