23455 réponses à ce sujet

[zegota]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

zegota wrote...

Himmelstor wrote...
We complain because we believe they did not follow their own established rules.

Complaining that it sucked is a time-honored tradition. Demanding it be changed -- OR ELSE!!! -- is not.

You can lay off the "Bioware Defense Force" angle for a while. You know this isn't even Bioware anymore, right? Doctor Ray and Doctor Greg no longer call the shots. Some slimey executive suit at EA headquarters runs Bioware now. Bioware has been indoctrinated by EA.

I couldn't care less who it is. It could be Hilbilly Joe What Lives Down By The River and I'd still defend him against people who think they're entitled to force him to create something contrary to his vision.

[Himmelstor]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Himmelstor wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Himmelstor wrote...

We are not.
The consenses among the dissatisfied is that the ending was wrong enough to constitute a change.
We don't do this because we think the game is bad.
We do this because the rest of the game was so goddamned good!

This is the post I was responding to initially that made me say that:

devSin wrote...

The ending makes it pretty irrelevant which moments are favorites. Does it really matter if they were good or great if I never have any desire to play through them again?

That's pretty much what I was saying.

In your opinion, the journey is important.
In our opinion, the ending is important because the journey was important.

Look closer. In that guy's opinion it's backwards: the journey's only important because the ending is important. Which is absurd.

...where the hell did you get 'it's backwards' there?
By that guy I assume you're referring to me.

The ending is important because the journey was important!

We care about the ending because we had such fun wth the rest of the game. The rest of the trilogy in fact. This is the end game. The ending is just the final step in the journey.

[Himmelstor]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

EddySpeddy wrote...

There were no good moments, having a **** ending ruined the entire game for me. Getting sick of you Bioware, used to be my favourite company, now you're just money grubbing DLC prats.

I thought Dragon Age II was bad, but I let it go because it's just a mid thing for the third, but this considering it was the big finish for the series, you end it like that? Or you just released an unfinished game so you can charge people for releasing an actual ending later on as a DLC?

Kthxbai, don't think I'll be buying another Bioware game.

Hey, Himmelstor.

This is what I'm talking about.

That is his prerogative as a consumer.

[zegota]

cinderburster wrote...

zegota wrote...

cinderburster wrote...

You're both missing the point.  Most of us aren't trying to dictate what Bioware should do, we're simply trying to let them know that something is wrong.

Whether they change it or not is, in the end, up to them.

If they do, maybe a small segment would like a poll, but they are NOT the majority.  I believe most of us would be content with a few more answers.

First of all, saying the ending is objectively wrong is the same as telling Bioware what to do.

And second of all -- are you joking? A pretty strong segment of the forum is outright saying that endorsing the idiotic indoctrination theory is the ONLY WAY to "fix" the game, and that if they don't release some free DLC saying "Lol it was all a dream guys shepard is okay <3" then BIOWARE IS DEAD TO MEEEE. Hell, there's a post literally a few posts up for yours that says exactly that. That the indoctrination is the CORRECT ENDING and it's what Bioware MUST IMPLEMENT.

Okay.  HERE, this is what I meant to say previously: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10022779

All of this is why the endings are an example of bad writing.  If I purchased a novel that had an ending like this?  After searching for the chapter I apparently somehow skipped, I would tell my friends not to bother.

There you go.  Storytelling is paramount to me in games, and to see such a fantastic story capped off in such a ham-fisted way is incredibly sad.

And as much as I disagree with you, that's fine. Telling your friends not to buy the novel/game, sure, go ahead.

Would you, however, organize a petition and swarm the author's message board in an attempt to make her change the ending, free-of-charge, to your preferred conclusion?

[levi.porphyrogenitus]

Everything about ME3 was amazing, except for the ending sequence. Geth/Quarian reconciliation, the Genophage, the cerberus research outposts, all of it was brilliant. It included some of the most disturbing villainies but offered the chance to overcome them. It gave you a chance to make a real impact in the lives of the people of the ME setting...

...until the ending makes everything else meaningless and then doesn't even offer you proper catharsis.

I articulate my thoughts on the ending here: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9749689/1

Modifié par levi.porphyrogenitus, 16 mars 2012 - 06:21 .

[ArmyKnifeX]

zegota wrote...
Fine.

Your crew is on the Normandy because they were shuttled back. I find it hilarious people keep using this argument, because if Shepard had gotten a call inside the Citadel saying "Hey, this is Joker. We picked up X and Y but it looks like the beam has stopped. Good luck in there," no one would have ever questioned it.

The Normandy gets torn apart because they're much closer to the Mass Relay explosion.

Not sure what you're talking about WRT the planet collision.

And, as I said, you'll never get an answer to the "Who created the Star Child" thing -- or, if you do, it'll be way down the line, and it'll be some seriously SWPrequel-level bull****. The fact that you think that's a question that needs answering makes me really wonder if you know what a "plot hole" actually is. You realize any answer Bioware can give you could just be followed up with "Well, but then who created THEM?"

First: Yes, that would have at least provided something. They didn't even give us THAT. I actually would've appreciated hearing that over the comms.

Second: Uhh... what? They're obviously traveling either FTL or through a relay beam. Considering everything, it looks more like the relay than what we're lead to believe FTL travel looks like in ME1 and ME2

Third: The fact that the Normandy crashes with a planet. Y'know. A crash landing. From either FTL or Relay speeds. Are you familiar with relativistic physics? Decelerating from FTL speeds without some stable device that enabled FTL travel in the first place would probably rip the ship to shreds from the stresses put on the ship itself alone. Or the ship would've... I don't know.. conserved momentum? Remember ME2 that gunnery chief briefing young soldiers on who the Deadliest sonnofa **** in Space is? Sir Isaac Newton. And that's not even reletavistic. At reletavistic speeds, Kinetic Energy is FAR greater than it would be for Newtonian physics.

Fourth: It's considered very bad writing/storytelling to introduce new characters who have all the answers or enormous power, or some special new ability that a character has, without at the VERY LEAST foreshadowing it. In terms of storytelling, there's no explanation for where he came from. He just appeared in the plot.

[Dragoonlordz]

Nenya Higurashi wrote...

In the meantime, let's give appreciation to Commander Shepard. Whether you loved the ME3 ending or didn't or you just have a lot of questions, he/she has given many of us some of the best adventures we have had while playing games. What was your favorite moment

Ok, I feel better knowing that, at least, Bioware is reading our feelings so... Meh...Let me think about my favourite moment... probably Mordin's sacrifice, I was really touched by that and I don't even know why. It was just... great.

Yeh I liked that too. I was more emotional over loss of Thane though by a long way.

[GM Jaken]

zegota wrote...

Vlta wrote...

zegota wrote...

Ugh. Reading over this thread more, I'm seriously disturbed. People are treating the ending to a story as if it's a software bug that needs to patched. There goes the whole "video games are art" thing.

I really don't get this. Video games are not art. They are a story, like any book or movie. This particular story is almost completly controled by you the player. All the choices you get to make in the three games helps you shape your shepard, and Bioware threw that all away in the last 5min of the last game. Even if it was art, which it isn't, bad art is still bad art no matter how you look at it and at least with a video game you can correct such mistakes.

You don't understand the definition of the word "art," apparently. Stories are art. Books are art. Movies are art. And actually, your statement that "bad art is still bad art" actually supports me. You're right. Bad art is still art. And art doesn't change based on the whims of some vocal group. I happen to dislike Picasso. That doesn't mean I think Picasso should have painted something different. He painted what he painted, and I didn't like it. So be it.

There's no mistake to be fixed here. There's no bug to be patched. Bioware didn't make a mistake. They made the ending(s) they wanted to make, and you happened not to like them. Tough cookies. There are a lot of movies I don't like. That doesn't mean I consider them "mistakes" to be fixed.

This.

[jkflipflopDAO]

I actually broke down into tears when Mordin gave his life to cure the Krogans. Whoever wrote that whole scene deserves a raise.

[Himmelstor]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Himmelstor wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Look closer. In that guy's opinion it's backwards: the journey's only important because the ending is important. Which is absurd.

...where the hell did you get 'it's backwards' there?
By that guy I assume you're referring to me.

The ending is important because the journey was important!

We care about the ending because we had such fun wth the rest of the game. The rest of the trilogy in fact. This is the end game. The ending is just the final step in the journey.

No, I'm talking about the guy I quoted. That's why I left that quote in there, i usually try to trim them down.

Huh. Specify when you do that, then, please. Thanks.

[Boceephus]

I loved seeing that dude finally get his refund, and anything that called back to my ME2 crew (just wish there was a lot more of it, especially Jack).

I really appreciate the idea of lore and continuity, so I love when I see it and makes me scratch my head when the ME2 crew is swept under the rug.

I'm sure there's a lot more I would love about this game if it wasn't for that ending which really affects the whole game for me.

Modifié par Boceephus, 16 mars 2012 - 06:26 .

[ArmyKnifeX]

zegota wrote...
And as much as I disagree with you, that's fine. Telling your friends not to buy the novel/game, sure, go ahead.

Would you, however, organize a petition and swarm the author's message board in an attempt to make her change the ending, free-of-charge, to your preferred conclusion?

Did you know Sherlock Holmes died? Yes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed him. The public was outraged. Then he retconned it and brought him back. Or what about any and all fan-based retcons in the comic book industry?

Any artist who makes a living selling entertainment knows that good business sense dicates that, if you ****** off your customers enough to the point where something like THIS happens to BioWare, you listen to them and try to do something for them that they will like and does not compromise your integrity.

[Himmelstor]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Himmelstor wrote...

That is his prerogative as a consumer.

But that's where I would compare it to death of something else with such a final and, for some, dismal ending: does it invalidate everything in life?

Not in my opinion. But if it did ruin it for him, my opinion doesn't matter much, does it?
And I stil think the ending was bad enough compared to the epic journey that revision should be done.

[wook77]

Wow, I had no idea that this thread was going to degenerate into "I'm the bettter fan" "No, you".

Look, the fact is - bad endings ruin things for some people. They don't ruin things for some people. Perhaps we should all try some mutual respect about the positions. Hating the endings doesn't make you a super fan nor does loving them. Denigrating one another's devotion to the franchise does no one a service. It's not a case of us versus them.

Let's try to stay on topic and talk about the endings and/or what we liked about the game and what we didn't rather than telling one another about which "side" has the super fans. Otherwise, we're facing having the thread locked down. I'd rather have the possibility of open communication about any issues.

[zegota]

ArmyKnifeX wrote...


Fourth: It's considered very bad writing/storytelling to introduce new characters who have all the answers or enormous power, or some special new ability that a character has, without at the VERY LEAST foreshadowing it. In terms of storytelling, there's no explanation for where he came from. He just appeared in the plot.

The existence of some Master Race outside of the Reapers is foreshadowed in Mass Effect 3 by the Reapers themselves, and alluded to even further back. This has been planned for a while. It's not a rush-job by any means.

And, I still don't know what you want. "What made X?" applies to the Reapers if Star Child wasn't there. And if they told you where Star Child came from, it would apply to whatever made him. Sometimes things just are. I don't need to know the details of the creation of the universe to have an effective story.

[ArmyKnifeX]

GM Jaken wrote...

zegota wrote...

Vlta wrote...

zegota wrote...

Ugh. Reading over this thread more, I'm seriously disturbed. People are treating the ending to a story as if it's a software bug that needs to patched. There goes the whole "video games are art" thing.

I really don't get this. Video games are not art. They are a story, like any book or movie. This particular story is almost completly controled by you the player. All the choices you get to make in the three games helps you shape your shepard, and Bioware threw that all away in the last 5min of the last game. Even if it was art, which it isn't, bad art is still bad art no matter how you look at it and at least with a video game you can correct such mistakes.

You don't understand the definition of the word "art," apparently. Stories are art. Books are art. Movies are art. And actually, your statement that "bad art is still bad art" actually supports me. You're right. Bad art is still art. And art doesn't change based on the whims of some vocal group. I happen to dislike Picasso. That doesn't mean I think Picasso should have painted something different. He painted what he painted, and I didn't like it. So be it.

There's no mistake to be fixed here. There's no bug to be patched. Bioware didn't make a mistake. They made the ending(s) they wanted to make, and you happened not to like them. Tough cookies. There are a lot of movies I don't like. That doesn't mean I consider them "mistakes" to be fixed.

This.

Have you guys ever been to an art gallery? Have you seen how many oil paintings have been altered by their artist, typically when the painting was comissioned? Maybe not even then? It happens all the time in traditional art.

And let's not even forget director's cuts of films!

Modifié par ArmyKnifeX, 16 mars 2012 - 06:23 .

[GM Jaken]

ArmyKnifeX wrote...

zegota wrote...
And as much as I disagree with you, that's fine. Telling your friends not to buy the novel/game, sure, go ahead.

Would you, however, organize a petition and swarm the author's message board in an attempt to make her change the ending, free-of-charge, to your preferred conclusion?

Did you know Sherlock Holmes died? Yes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed him. The public was outraged. Then he retconned it and brought him back. Or what about any and all fan-based retcons in the comic book industry?

Any artist who makes a living selling entertainment knows that good business sense dicates that, if you ****** off your customers enough to the point where something like THIS happens to BioWare, you listen to them and try to do something for them that they will like and does not compromise your integrity.

Wait.  Sherlock Holmes' death was retconned?  Excuse me while I tilt out.  How the crap have I lived this long and not known that...?

[SonicAF]

What about adding more options BEFORE everyone tries this game? Even if we consider polls inaccurate more than 50% fans hate such a "grand finale". It's all about majority - things go wrong.

[Omnike]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Omnike wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Then please, why don't you dismount from that high-horse of yours and explain it to us peons?

Why is my entire crew on the Normandy when they were with me on Earth 5 minutes ago? How did Joker walk away from a FTL ship-to-planet collision? If the relay exploding tore the Normandy to pieces, why didn't it hurt anything on Earth? Who created the StarChild? 

I still do not get why people keep implying everyone was on the Normandy... I completed it and I did not see everyone there at all, not even close.

Liara was with me on Earth riding in the APC to the transporter beam. Then she's climbing off the crashed Normandy with Joker.  They couldn't have sent a shuttle in to pick them up with the Reapers standing right there. How did she get from the streets of London to the Normandy?

Well the Reaper did chase after something when you woke up, why could what he chased after not be a shuttle that picked them up? Because he was present and because you think he would of hit the shuttle or could it be the fact your Shepard was unconscious for who knows how long there was plenty of time for the shuttle to land elsewhere and your team to reach it prior to waking up? Couldn't your team also been knocked away from your position by the blast and instead you woke up first and did not see them so went into the beam, you saw the Reaper leave prior so a shuttle could of landed and your team woke up after then. If you recall you also pass out on after going through the beam so again time becomes and unknown element and there is potentially time for them to have boarded the shuttle since the Reaper is already gone too after they woke up.

But you do see them. Charred to the ground. I had Tali and Garrus with me, and I doubt it was a coincidence that I saw a burnt Quarian and a burnt Garrus. Then Garrus gets out of the ship. Explain.

I saw a lot of burned bodies but they certainly were not recognisable or identifiable as my companions. I did not run down the slope with just them and I cannot claim those bodies were in any way recognisable facially or armour wise to say was them. Then again I ran down the hill with Ash and Vega.

I'm pretty sure that there were only humans running with you to the final beam. The only difference was a dead Quarian and a dead Turian.

[ArmyKnifeX]

zegota wrote...

ArmyKnifeX wrote...


Fourth: It's considered very bad writing/storytelling to introduce new characters who have all the answers or enormous power, or some special new ability that a character has, without at the VERY LEAST foreshadowing it. In terms of storytelling, there's no explanation for where he came from. He just appeared in the plot.

The existence of some Master Race outside of the Reapers is foreshadowed in Mass Effect 3 by the Reapers themselves, and alluded to even further back. This has been planned for a while. It's not a rush-job by any means.

And, I still don't know what you want. "What made X?" applies to the Reapers if Star Child wasn't there. And if they told you where Star Child came from, it would apply to whatever made him. Sometimes things just are. I don't need to know the details of the creation of the universe to have an effective story.

The creators of the Reapers were foreshadowed, yes, but not the particular AI/God/Starchild/Hallucination/DeusExMachina/DeusExHumanRevolution that we got. He is a character...w ell, a cardboard cutout of something that could potentially be called a character at some point maybe if there were more to him/her/it/thing. Because this is a character, instead of AMORPHOUS REAPER PRODUCING ENTITY A it's bad storytelling.

[Rice Rocket]

 You guys will just put a price tag on the ending(s) when we've pretty much paid for them.
I will not be surprised if that does happen.
Anyone else?

[ArmyKnifeX]

GM Jaken wrote...

ArmyKnifeX wrote...

zegota wrote...
And as much as I disagree with you, that's fine. Telling your friends not to buy the novel/game, sure, go ahead.

Would you, however, organize a petition and swarm the author's message board in an attempt to make her change the ending, free-of-charge, to your preferred conclusion?

Did you know Sherlock Holmes died? Yes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed him. The public was outraged. Then he retconned it and brought him back. Or what about any and all fan-based retcons in the comic book industry?

Any artist who makes a living selling entertainment knows that good business sense dicates that, if you ****** off your customers enough to the point where something like THIS happens to BioWare, you listen to them and try to do something for them that they will like and does not compromise your integrity.

Wait.  Sherlock Holmes' death was retconned?  Excuse me while I tilt out.  How the crap have I lived this long and not known that...?

Your sarcasm tells me everything I need to know about you.

You're arguing that art like ME is infallible. I provided a counter-example. And you choose to make fun of me for pointing it out?

[zegota]

ArmyKnifeX wrote...

Did you know Sherlock Holmes died? Yes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed him. The public was outraged. Then he retconned it and brought him back. Or what about any and all fan-based retcons in the comic book industry?

You mean the comic book retcons that are routinely derided as hacking away at the intergrity of the storytelling medium? Those retcons? Yes. I'm aware.

And yes, I'm aware Doyle revived Sherlock Holmes so he could continue to make money. It was unfortunate he had to do it then, and it's unfortunate Bioware is going to have to do it now.