Ce sujet est fermé
knection wrote...
I have heard on the game informer site that the editors that had beaten the game were responding to the retake mass effect movement. The editors were commenting that the retake mass effect movement were wanting a Care Bear Stare ending where The Normandy Crew hold hands and activate the crucible and take down the reapers or have all your crew one by one come up and punch a reaper in the face.... that made me kind of mad because they were blatantly ignoring why this ending is bad in the first place....space kid....normandy crew deserting....a galactic fleet stuck on earth...its not oh no shep dies it is so much more than that.
It is my opinion, that these game editors do not play these games for fun, but simply to write their reviews. Therefore, they may not notice many of the different discrepencies that occur throughout the game, because they are looking for glitches that crash the game, critiquing the voice acting and cut scenes, and comparing the combat to all the other shooters and button-mashers on the market. They do not allow themselves to become immerged into the game enough to notice flaws in roleplay and plot. They do not care if the ending contradicts all the hundreds of game hours that have come prior in the series. Heck, they have such tunnel vision, they do not even notice it contradicts what happened in ME3.
Regarding Bioware, I share the opinion that they were forced to rush the ending. I do not believe EA has ever been a good fit for Bioware as a partner. They cater to those that only want action, not depth. They have no sympathy for the rpg audience that Bioware established before they partnered up. I would have thought that Bioware would be successful enough, to do things on their own, without the EA corporate bigwigs telling them what to do. But that is part of the business side of the game, that most of us are not privy to.
And Bioware is perfectly capable of messing up endings, without the excuse of being rushed. How many of you recall the first Neverwinter Nights, when the most central NPC in the game (Aribeth) was executed, not during the game, but in the epilogue, when the hero had no chance to even speak in her defense, let alone attempt to rescue if the player chose to. The blowback that Bioware received for that snafu, caused them to bring her back in the 3rd episode to partner with the new hero in the afterlife (both denizens in some planes of hell).
Many of the flaws of the ME3 ending have been discussed at length, one flaw that I have not heard talked about much is the charge towards the beam of light and the Reaper destructo-ray. For the whole game, you were encouraged to conduct your combat missions by using cover, and making tactical moves with your squad mates. Then, when everything was on the line, Bioware decided that you were to ignore everything Shepard and the rest of the alliance army knew about combat, and make a frontal charge against one of the most powerful weapons in the known galaxy. In the real world, most militaries stopped making full on charges against the enemy, across 100's of yards of open field, after World War 1. The ray could only shoot in one direction at once. All survivors at that point would have tried to stay under cover as long as possible, and encircle the beam, allowing for a maximum number of attackers to avoid the death ray, and arrive at the beam. As soon as the death charge started, I knew that the ending was really going to be screwed.
For those that claim to have loved the ending, I am guessing that they have no idea about tactics, or game logic, and would be happy with whatever is put in front of them, if it was flashy enough to entertain them. It is another reason that I wish Bioware and EA were not partners. It brings two types of players together, that do not appreciate the same thing in games. Afterall, it does not take much skill to write an ending to a sports game. Once you have the game mechanics figured out, the endings write themselves.
Modifié par Dakota Strider, 01 avril 2012 - 04:33 .
Retour en haut
