64 réponses à ce sujet

[ironman001]

They cut most of ending just to sell it as DLC you will mark mine word this is EA we talking they order Bioware to cut Prothean and make first day DLC from it and one more thing there will be Omega DLC. If you don't believe me then check the galaxy map with ME 2.
PS. Sorry for me bad english.

Modifié par ironman001, 12 mars 2012 - 11:20 .

[stu_]

hawat333 wrote...

No.

It wasn't released to amend the ending. It was necessary to keep the main character alive because the DLC were basically post-game DLC.
That was the reason. Not that they wanted to amend anything.

this.

[Planeforger]

Fallout 3 and Prince of Persia sort of got away with it for being one-off games. Even if the original endings sucked, people weren't as emotionally invested with those plots as they were with the Mass Effect series, and they didn't retroactively make the rest of the series suck in comparison.

It's really poor practive either way, but if Bioware tried the same thing for Mass Effect 3, I suspect people will be a lot less forgiving.

[Thetri]

Fallout 3's ending wasn't bad it was the fact that I couldn't continue playing after the last quest that was bad. My character didn't even die at the end.

[Planeforger]

Thetri wrote...

Fallout 3's ending wasn't bad it was the fact that I couldn't continue playing after the last quest that was bad. My character didn't even die at the end.

*Fallout 3 spoilers*

It was bad because the sacrifice made no sense. It was completely forced.
You're told that you wouldn't be able to survive the radiation inside the chamber. Sure, that's fine...but it ignores the fact that you most likely have Fawkes with you. You know, the guy you recruited earlier specifically for the task of entering radiation-filled rooms on your behalf?
And he wasn't even the only party member immune to radiation!

*end spoilers*

[Reikilea]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Bad King wrote...

FO3 had a good ending- in my opinion the Broken Steel DLC felt very artificial in how it was tacked on (although overall the DLC was quite enjoyable).

My problem with the ending was I had Fawkes stood 5 feet away. I can't believe they overlooked that possibility.

Hah so true. If I coul I would kick him there. No I cant go there - so you suddenly mind now? Didnt you pulled the same trick before...
Not to mention that I stacked myself wiht best radiation suits and dosens of unused radaways. For nothing.

[suprhomre]

As long as there are idiots who are willing to pay.

[batlin]

LordJeyl wrote...

The reason why it didn't create plot holes all over the map was because the whole entire ending was a gigantic plot hole that couldn't fit any other holes in. Nothing about the original ending made any sense.

What is the gigantic plot hole, exactly?

I didn't pay for Fallout 3 to have a new ending. It came with the "Game of the Year" edition I got for the PS3. And I'm not totally convinced that the "continued play after the end" was the sole reason the DLC was released because the very next Fallout game, Fallout New Vagas, has a very clear and defined ending that doesn't allow the player to continue in the game and none of it's DLC alters it. When you finish your main quest, that's it. 

And I think another element that Broken Steel tried to rectify was the sense of impact that your character had in the Capitol Wastes. Fallouts 1 and 2 each had endings that covered all of your character's exploits in the various towns and communities. In Fallout 3, you get some slides, but no specific voice over. With Broken Steel, you get to see a bit at how the capitol wastes was changed when the water purifier was turned on.

Bethesda released Broken Steel because fans were upset that you could not progress after the main quest. The reason they had a definite ending to begin with is because that was how the original Fallout games worked. Obsidian's New Vegas had a definite ending, party because it's how the original Fallouts worked (Obsidian is run by former Black Isle devs) and partially because the main quest allowed for so many resolutions that allowing continued play would have required an expansion-sized project to make work right.

[ToJKa1]

LordJeyl wrote...
I didn't pay for Fallout 3 to have a new ending. It came with the "Game of the Year" edition I got for the PS3. And I'm not totally convinced that the "continued play after the end" was the sole reason the DLC was released because the very next Fallout game, Fallout New Vagas, has a very clear and defined ending that doesn't allow the player to continue in the game and none of it's DLC alters it. When you finish your main quest, that's it. 

That's because New Vegas was developed by Obsidian, not Bethesda Game Studios (it was published by Bethesda Softworks, but that's separate from BGS). And Obisidan decided to make an RPG instead of a Bethesda-style open world dungeon crawler, which is also why the world of New Vegas is poorer than Fallout 3's or Skyrim's (everything else is better though ).

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

BobSmith101 wrote...
My problem with the ending was I had Fawkes stood 5 feet away. I can't believe they overlooked that possibility.

Well, I remember talking to her and she actually answered something like "It is your story. I can't do that." (seconds before I shoots her head) so they didn't overlook that. What they overlooked was a possible speach check to convince her to do it.

[Edhriano]

Moonshadow_Dark wrote...

Edhriano wrote...

 Just as FYI ... 

www.examiner.com/xbox-in-national/prince-of-persia-gets-dlc-new-ending 

Aw crap. Here come Biscuit with his "Boycott ME3 Ending DLC" video.

Is this personal attack? Should I report this?

Reminder :


Well ?

Modifié par Edhriano, 12 mars 2012 - 12:47 .

[stu_]

no!  ^

Modifié par stu_, 12 mars 2012 - 03:46 .

[ognick23]

i dont think Fallout DLC can really be used here because Broken Steel was made because they wanted to let players continue playing after they finished the last mission because Broken Steel sucked IMO

[Stanley Woo]

No such DLC has been announced.

End of line.