23455 réponses à ce sujet

[OriginalTibs]

dfdsgrgre wrote...

so what do we know about any coming DLC and where can i find info?

We know there will be some, that some of it will become available this year, that some of it will explain the endings, and that there will be an announcement about it sometime in April, but that the announcement will be made on some other day than April 1st.

Plus we know Bioware will be at the PAX East convention/show.

[SaabFAN86]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

I think it is funny that the "game press" talks about the integrity of the art and the dangers of changing it for or designing it around its consumers. To be a journalist, you need to do some research. Otherwise, you aren't a journalist; you're a pundit. Great works of art have very often been done on commission and are greatly affected by the person or people paying for it. Heck, the Sistine Chapel was done on commission. There isn't anything the least bit unusual about artists responding to their patrons. Read a little.

You're right! There are two forms of art: Art for Arts sake and Art for the customer. And ME3 clearly is Art for the customer. It is specifically designed to be sold to many people and the artists promised us a product they didn't really deliver.
If I had pre-ordered a painting on the assumption that the description from the artist fits the finished painting and he delivers something that doesn't match his description, I could at least demand a partial refund.
Well... EA is doing it by offering a Batman-Game for only 10$ if you bought ME3.
But I payed 75€ for the rather slim packed Collectors Editon (the comic and the Artbook were only "previews" -.-) and got a game that feels not even rushed, but unfinished! If I had payed only a third (i know some people who managed to do it), I would put it into my shelf and forget about it, but atm it is standing there as a big warning not to preorder games anymore.

[improperdancing]

PuppiesOfDeath2 wrote...

I think it is funny that the "game press" talks about the integrity of the art and the dangers of changing it for or designing it around its consumers. To be a journalist, you need to do some research. Otherwise, you aren't a journalist; you're a pundit. Great works of art have very often been done on commission and are greatly affected by the person or people paying for it. Heck, the Sistine Chapel was done on commission. There isn't anything the least bit unusual about artists responding to their patrons. Read a little.

I think it's funny that the majority of the gaming press talks about integrity at all.  Keep in mind that their salaries are paid by ad revenue from the companies whose games they are reviewing.  The conflict of interest inherent in being a gaming journalist is laughable.  Hell, at least one guy has lost his job because he refused to give a game a higher score than it deserved.  How many others have changed the score to keep their jobs?

And I also think it's funny that gaming companies talk about artistic integrity while their publishers will revoke access to any journalist who gives their games a score too low, or will threaten to cut ad revenue to sites that don't publish glowing previews.  I mean, how many times have you read a preview on a gaming site that hyped up the game to no end, only to find a mediocre (or outright terrible) game upon release.

The gaming industry is not one with a lot of artistic integrity, and they really need to stop playing that card every time a consumer demands that they get the product that was promised to them.

Modifié par improperdancing, 01 avril 2012 - 03:03 .

[fistandan77]

They stuck the ending of The Matrix to the end of Return of the Jedi. It was so incongruous.

Apart from the ending, I loved the game.

[CuseGirl]

OriginalTibs wrote...

I believe they may need some time to come up with content adequately explaining how the endings we have been given make sense.

Unless they had the solution already made.

The problem is, that's a PR nightmare of its own. It's like in the movie Outbreak, when the Americans released a disease on an African village and HAD the cure. So you created this turd-storm even though you had the resources to prevent it or fix it? Bioware can't take that hit agian.....

[CuseGirl]

improperdancing wrote...
I think it's funny that the majority of the gaming press talks about integrity at all.  Keep in mind that their salaries are paid by ad revenue from the companies whose games they are reviewing.  The conflict of interest inherent in being a gaming journalist is laughable.  Hell, at least one guy has lost his job because he refused to give a game a higher score than it deserved.  How many others have changed the score to keep their jobs?

And I also think it's funny that gaming companies talk about artistic integrity while their publishers will revoke access to any journalist who gives their games a score too low, or will threaten to cut ad revenue to sites that don't publish glowing previews.  I mean, how many times have you read a preview on a gaming site that hyped up the game to no end, only to find a mediocre (or outright terrible) game upon release.

The gaming industry is not one with a lot of artistic integrity, and they really need to stop playing that card every time a consumer demands that they get the product that was promised to them.

To the bolder part? That's basically Madden and NCAA football for the last 5 years. How a game can be made ANUALLY and have the same bugs from 6 years ago is beyond me.

[Jassu1979]

CuseGirl wrote...

OriginalTibs wrote...

I believe they may need some time to come up with content adequately explaining how the endings we have been given make sense.

Unless they had the solution already made.

The problem is, that's a PR nightmare of its own. It's like in the movie Outbreak, when the Americans released a disease on an African village and HAD the cure. So you created this turd-storm even though you had the resources to prevent it or fix it? Bioware can't take that hit agian.....

Honestly, I would not hold it against them if some variation of the Indoctrination Theory turned out to be true all along. It would make for an amazing gaming experience that reaches WAY beyond the boundaries of the game, basically putting us all in Shepard's shoes and only afterwards making us come to the realization of what was actually happening.

Unfortunately, it's just as likely that they simply messed up, and were too busy setting up a scenario for future sequels. ("Mass Effect: Battlefield" - join the fight between the different races of the universe as they clash over the scant resources of the Sol system, fighting for their very survival.")

[trogwolf]

I think I have decided that almost all of the complainers are spoiled brats.

When I finished ME3 the first time I overlooked the choices, expecting a dialogue with options, and so thought that there were no choices. The result was that I posted in this thread that the only complaint I had was that no choice was given in a game that had made hard choices the foundation of the game.

When I finished the second time I figured out my oversight and discovered how the three choices were presented: left, right, and center. So my "only complaint" vanished.

After reading some of the objections in this thread and on the internet, I have come to the conclusioin that humans are goofy. There is a reason someone came up with saying "give them an inch and they will take a mile." And it has probably always been true.

This game has one objective - STOP THE REAPERS, and requires only one ending - STOP THE REAPERS. At the beginning of ME3, Shepard says, "It's fight or die. If you aren't prepared to die to stop the reapers, you are dead already."
You should have had only two expectations for the ending of this game:
1)Shepard will die stopping the Reapers
2)Somehow, there will be a hard choice at the end before Shepard stops the Reapers

Instead, the writers of the game gave you more than necessary:
As a renegade, you may choose not to stop the Reapers but to control them.
As a paragon, you may choose to preserve all organic life or preserve all organic and all synthetic life.

They should have only given you what was required - one ending: Shepard dies stopping the Reapers.

They gave you so much within the three games that the ending isn't good enough for you. You are all a bunch of spoiled brats. Throw your tantrums. Take the wonderful thing you have been given and throw it on the ground and stomp on it, because you didn't want sprinkles on your mega banana split.

Humans are goofy.
If I tell you or show you that I only have enough to give you what you need, and then I give it to you, you will accept it.
If I tell you or show you that I have enough to give you what you want, but then I only give you what you need, you will accept it, grudgingly.
If I tell you or show you that I have more than enough to give you what you want, but then I only give you what you need, you will probably reject it.
If I tell you or show you that I have more than enough to give you what you want, and I give you what you want, you will accept it, grudgingly, because you will want more.
If I tell you or show you that I have more than enough to give you what you want, and I give you more than what you want, you may accept it or reject it, but you will complain about it and demand more, and you may even find a way to try to force me to give you the new thing that you have decided you want.
Humans are goofy.

[paulb6662]

i liked all of it untill i see the ending. all 3 games were really good and hard to stop playing once u get in to it but to end it they way u did was a real let down and disapointing.

[ahleung]

trogwolf wrote...

I think I have decided that almost all of the complainers are spoiled brats.
(skip)

If you have read the objections on the Internet, you should know that people are not complaining about Shepard's death. It's the ending being fundamentally flawed.

Mass Relay's explosion will destroy its own star system (ME2 Arrival). So in ME3's ending, you didn't just stopped the Reapers, you killed all lives in the galaxy, destroyed Earth and thousands other planets, by blowing up all the Mass Relays and hence their star systems.

And your teammates, who fought alongside you to the very end on Earth, mysteriously teleported back to Normandy. And Normandy, somehow predicted the Mass Relay explosions, fled in advance while the battle was still going on.

And the Glowing Kid's explanation, about Reaper's existence, their purpose and everything, contradicts with what Soverign and Harbinger have said in ME1&2.

Modifié par ahleung, 01 avril 2012 - 04:03 .

[No_MSG]

trogwolf wrote...
This game has one objective - STOP THE REAPERS, and requires only one ending - STOP THE REAPERS. At the beginning of ME3, Shepard says, "It's fight or die. If you aren't prepared to die to stop the reapers, you are dead already."

So... why, at the end, do I not fight the Reapers?
I follow, for some reason, the broken logic of the creator of The Reapers.  By making ANY of the choices presented in the ending, I'm supporting the Reapers.

No, I'd rather fight the reapers and lose.  But I don't get that choice.

[CuseGirl]

trogwolf wrote...

I think I have decided that almost all of the complainers are spoiled brats.

When I finished ME3 the first time I overlooked the choices, expecting a dialogue with options, and so thought that there were no choices. The result was that I posted in this thread that the only complaint I had was that no choice was given in a game that had made hard choices the foundation of the game.

When I finished the second time I figured out my oversight and discovered how the three choices were presented: left, right, and center. So my "only complaint" vanished.

After reading some of the objections in this thread and on the internet, I have come to the conclusioin that humans are goofy. There is a reason someone came up with saying "give them an inch and they will take a mile." And it has probably always been true.

This game has one objective - STOP THE REAPERS, and requires only one ending - STOP THE REAPERS. At the beginning of ME3, Shepard says, "It's fight or die. If you aren't prepared to die to stop the reapers, you are dead already."
You should have had only two expectations for the ending of this game:
1)Shepard will die stopping the Reapers
2)Somehow, there will be a hard choice at the end before Shepard stops the Reapers

Instead, the writers of the game gave you more than necessary:
As a renegade, you may choose not to stop the Reapers but to control them.
As a paragon, you may choose to preserve all organic life or preserve all organic and all synthetic life.

They should have only given you what was required - one ending: Shepard dies stopping the Reapers.

They gave you so much within the three games that the ending isn't good enough for you. You are all a bunch of spoiled brats. Throw your tantrums. Take the wonderful thing you have been given and throw it on the ground and stomp on it, because you didn't want sprinkles on your mega banana split.

Humans are goofy.
If I tell you or show you that I only have enough to give you what you need, and then I give it to you, you will accept it.
If I tell you or show you that I have enough to give you what you want, but then I only give you what you need, you will accept it, grudgingly.
If I tell you or show you that I have more than enough to give you what you want, but then I only give you what you need, you will probably reject it.
If I tell you or show you that I have more than enough to give you what you want, and I give you what you want, you will accept it, grudgingly, because you will want more.
If I tell you or show you that I have more than enough to give you what you want, and I give you more than what you want, you may accept it or reject it, but you will complain about it and demand more, and you may even find a way to try to force me to give you the new thing that you have decided you want.
Humans are goofy.

"Humans are goofy"? What does that even mean? Also, you're quote from Shepard is wrong, its "we fight or we die, that's the plan". Shepard never says that whole "if you're not prepared to die" jargon. As a matter of fact, Renegade Shepard's have a few quotes where they clearly state "i'm not dying anytime soon" or "i plan to survive this mission", etc.

The bulk of complaints about the endings are not about Shepard dying. But they do INCLUDE Shepard's forced death in 5 of the 6 possible endings. They are concerned that even tho you can meta-game to the point of monotony, you STILL don't get kill the Reapers while maining the Mass Relay network. They are concerned that, if taken at face value, the ending shows your crew members ON THE NORMANDY (even if 2 of them were running with you toward the Citadel beam) crash landing on an unknown planet. Dude, the endings are so ass backwards, Shepard's death (or alleged BREATH after the Citadel explodes) is like 15th on the list of issues.

[garytwine]

trogwolf wrote...

I think I have decided that almost all of the complainers are spoiled brats.

When I finished ME3 the first time I overlooked the choices, expecting a dialogue with options, and so thought that there were no choices. The result was that I posted in this thread that the only complaint I had was that no choice was given in a game that had made hard choices the foundation of the game.

When I finished the second time I figured out my oversight and discovered how the three choices were presented: left, right, and center. So my "only complaint" vanished.

After reading some of the objections in this thread and on the internet, I have come to the conclusioin that humans are goofy. There is a reason someone came up with saying "give them an inch and they will take a mile." And it has probably always been true.

This game has one objective - STOP THE REAPERS, and requires only one ending - STOP THE REAPERS. At the beginning of ME3, Shepard says, "It's fight or die. If you aren't prepared to die to stop the reapers, you are dead already."
You should have had only two expectations for the ending of this game:
1)Shepard will die stopping the Reapers
2)Somehow, there will be a hard choice at the end before Shepard stops the Reapers

Instead, the writers of the game gave you more than necessary:
As a renegade, you may choose not to stop the Reapers but to control them.
As a paragon, you may choose to preserve all organic life or preserve all organic and all synthetic life.

They should have only given you what was required - one ending: Shepard dies stopping the Reapers.

They gave you so much within the three games that the ending isn't good enough for you. You are all a bunch of spoiled brats. Throw your tantrums. Take the wonderful thing you have been given and throw it on the ground and stomp on it, because you didn't want sprinkles on your mega banana split.

Humans are goofy.
If I tell you or show you that I only have enough to give you what you need, and then I give it to you, you will accept it.
If I tell you or show you that I have enough to give you what you want, but then I only give you what you need, you will accept it, grudgingly.
If I tell you or show you that I have more than enough to give you what you want, but then I only give you what you need, you will probably reject it.
If I tell you or show you that I have more than enough to give you what you want, and I give you what you want, you will accept it, grudgingly, because you will want more.
If I tell you or show you that I have more than enough to give you what you want, and I give you more than what you want, you may accept it or reject it, but you will complain about it and demand more, and you may even find a way to try to force me to give you the new thing that you have decided you want.
Humans are goofy.

Sorry dude but I have to disagree. Just to clarify, this isn't a personal attack on anyone, just my opinion based on the below quote and other comments from Bioware.

The writers, or more accurately Casey Hudson, gave us what they wanted, despite all of their talk of how 'the fans co-created Mass Effect with Bioware' and 'how much they listen to our feedback'.

Casey Hudson himself said:

"I didn't want the game to be forgettable," Hudson told Digital Trends.
"Even right down to the sort of polarizing reaction that the ends have
had with people - debating what the endings mean and what's going to
happen next, and what situation are the characters left in."

"That to me is part of what's exciting about this story. There has
always been a little bit of mystery there and a little bit of
interpretation, and it's a story that people can talk about after the
fact."

Because Casey Hudson wanted this game to stand out above others and cause a stir within the gaming world greater than any game that has come before, he gave us, the people that care about these games the ending that he wanted.

If he was really paying attention, really cared about fan feedback and really wanted to give us something we would remember fondly for decades to come he wouldn't of acted on his own 'selfish' desire and would of actually given an ending that gave true closure and meaning instead of leaving people confused, guessing and wondering what the hell just happened and how we got there.

My first reaction to the ending was 'Did I do something wrong? Did I miss something?". What I was expecting was the rush, the feeling that anything is possible, the wonder, amazement and even a little bit of shock you get after you've left the cinema after watching a really great movie. The sort of film that gets you talking for all the right reasons and one that you will forever keep in your collection, buying new copies when it moves into a new  improved media format.

So, does this make me, or anyone else goofy, that felt the same way? Just because we expected something more uplifting and amazing?  I don't think so. I do, on my behalf at least, think that I was very naive to think Bioware really cared in the first place though.

Modifié par garytwine, 01 avril 2012 - 04:31 .

[FreshRevenge]

trogwolf wrote...

I think I have decided that almost all of the complainers are spoiled brats.

Why do we have people who think they aer so righteous that they need to call the majority of fans who dislike the ending spoiled brats? The ending of Mass Effect is illogical nonsensical BullShiiit!

One the character of Shepard does a 180 and completely ignores the personality of Shepard. like Shepard has given up and accepts these choices because that is all that was given!

I am sure you are  fully aware of the plotholes and reasons why fans find the ending something dissatified! LIke why is Joker speeding off when the last time I check I though he was down on earth?

So Joker picked up the crew and left the atmosphere and left you stranded on the citatel or wherever you were? Sorry Joker would not do that! He wouldn't just abandon Shepard! So that is one PLOT HOLE that needs to be patch up!

Now I carefully inspected the area that you meet up with Admiral Anderson on the citatel. I don't see how he got there before Shepard. I didn't see any other path except for the one Shepard was on? I mean I was looking at the structures and I don't see how they moved? Since they look pretty solid!

Niow something I noticed last night as I did another playthrough. When you talk to Garrus at the end. He talks about retiring somewhere tropical and living off the royallties from the VIDS. When you see Joker opening the port side airlock to exit out, he and whoever cames out, I had Garrus and Liara. They are somewhere tropical. Now I am thinking that Shepard dreams about this before waking up in the pile of rubble. So I am kinda of seeing that there was one true ending.

If Bioware planned this all along, the end might just be forgivable. I mean people are talking about the ending. I don't know if that is the reaction they wanted but it proves that the fans aren't stupid! 

[jeweledleah]

don't reply to trolls, you guys. and yes, the moment they start slinging personal insults? they are trolls. moreover - they are in violation of the rules of this site. so.
ignore them and/or report them

[Kitty_Phat]

I have to say that I loved all the Mass Effect games. All the graphics, the game play, the companions, the main story line and the little side ones, they have been awesome games. A big thank you to bioware for them.

When I finished Mass Effect 1 I thought wow, can't wait for Mass Effect 2. The Mass Effect 2 end mission was immense, choosing which companion did what job and would they survive? And when they did, admittedly after a second play through, I felt like Shepard and Co had achieved something big.

I was so excited over Mass Effect 3 and continued to love the game and all the way through to the final fairwells to the companions. The end seem to lack urgency and scale, I kept expecting something to happen, to see what the other companions were doing. Then when I chose the ending and saw the final cut scene, I sat staring at my TV thinking, oh right its finished then? My choices meant nothing, I had no idea what was going on with all the companions, what happened to them? What happened to all the ships in earth's orbit? It might have well have just ended like The Soprano's. I was and still am disappointed.

All I want to say is, Bioware, you have given us three great games, listen to your fan's who care about the games and your company, don't listen to the critics who clearly only publish after a few hours game play. Afterall we buy your games, and we are the ones who will tell you the truth. Mass Effect 3 fab game till the Earth mission. xxx

[Benchpress610]

jeweledleah wrote...

1. Deus ex ending actually fits the game its attached to and it doesn't destroy/invalidate every single choice you made before getting to that point.
2. http://www.ted.com/t..._vs_memory.html the reason why we feel about the ending ruining the rest of the game for us
3. there are plenty of ways to rewrite the endings to make a bit more sense then what they are right now and attaching them to visible paragon/renegade/neutral text is NOT it. that's not rewriting - that's adding more colors.
4. consider the implication of your choices. be sure to think back to arrival, to the Sovereign and the keepers, check back to the codex entry on FTL travel in Mass Effect world, consider how many people are currently stranded in Sol system (assuming they survived at all) and then the state of the earth and its ability to support those fleets long term.

Absolutely, DXHR endings are in lockstep with the rest of the game. The choices that Adam Jensen faces are performed on devices that didn’t come out of thin air. They don’t leave plot holes behind and tie up the game nicely. After the choice is made, the following ending cut scene is long enough to explain the aftermath and consequences. …I did feel closure with the end of the game. (Although I would’ve liked to see Adam riding into the sunset with Malik)  
 
BTW: very instructive dissertation by Daniel Kahneman. I invite everybody to watch it.
 
I’d like to know where it is written that happy endings are bad. It should be one of the choices if you did everything right and accumulated enough paragon points.
 
There are plenty of bad endings for those who want them. But by the size of this thread and the polls, they will be sharing their misery with very few.

[Benchpress610]

jeweledleah wrote...

don't reply to trolls, you guys. and yes, the moment they start slinging personal insults? they are trolls. moreover - they are in violation of the rules of this site. so.
ignore them and/or report them

Right...as I posted before, the best way to deal with these people is to ignore them.

[CuseGirl]

My first reaction to the ending was 'Did I do something wrong? Did I miss something?"

THIS. After I picked the destroy option the first time and saw the Mass Relay network explode, I thought "man, I must not have mad enough EMS". And I thought "dang, not getting the Geth/Quarian debate settled really hurt me". And not getting to see Miranda after the fight and thinking "dang, Shepard just died on the Citadel", I must have screwed up somewhere.

So I played the game again.....same exact ending except I get a breath while laying in rubble? And no chance to actually kill the Reapers? what? nonsense......

[jeweledleah]

Benchpress610 wrote...
 
I’d like to know where it is written that happy endings are bad. It should be one of the choices if you did everything right and accumulated enough paragon points.
 
There are plenty of bad endings for those who want them. But by the size of this thread and the polls, they will be sharing their misery with very few.

hey, renegades deserve happy endings too   after all, some renegades accomplish exactly the same things as paragons, they just do it their own way.

[MartinPenwald]

FreshRevenge wrote...


One the character of Shepard does a 180 and completely ignores the personality of Shepard. like Shepard has given up and accepts these choices because that is all that was given!

This. So much this. Bioware gave us the tools to play "our" Shepard, a unique Shepard for anyone. And the way I played my Shepard, the Commander would have never reacted the way that was shown in the last few minutes, and it seems that I'm not the only one who felt the disconnect.

[Benchpress610]

CuseGirl wrote...

My first reaction to the ending was 'Did I do something wrong? Did I miss something?"

THIS. After I picked the destroy option the first time and saw the Mass Relay network explode, I thought "man, I must not have mad enough EMS". And I thought "dang, not getting the Geth/Quarian debate settled really hurt me". And not getting to see Miranda after the fight and thinking "dang, Shepard just died on the Citadel", I must have screwed up somewhere.

So I played the game again.....same exact ending except I get a breath while laying in rubble? And no chance to actually kill the Reapers? what? nonsense......

^This...it wasn't until I came to the forums that I realized it wasn't just me...it sucked for everyone...well, almost everyone.

[Benchpress610]

jeweledleah wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...
 
I’d like to know where it is written that happy endings are bad. It should be one of the choices if you did everything right and accumulated enough paragon points.
 
There are plenty of bad endings for those who want them. But by the size of this thread and the polls, they will be sharing their misery with very few.

hey, renegades deserve happy endings too   after all, some renegades accomplish exactly the same things as paragons, they just do it their own way.

Yeah, I didn't mean it that way. I had a few satisfying renegade runs myself. Let's call it "reputation points"

[tlor57]

Ways to fix Mass Effect 3 in order:

1)Fix my controller dead zone
2)Have a final confrontation/battle with Harbinger
3)Shoot TIM in head
4)More dialogue options with Star Child
5)More variation in endings, not just ABC...and see full battle outside of citadel
6)Make it harder to save Earth
7)Get rid of multiplayer modifier
8)Day one DLC should have been free, as should future DLC

easy

[Jassu1979]

After looking at the ending once more, I find that everything beyond the "bright light"-sequence feels and sounds exactly like the odd dream sequences we were faced with earlier in the game. We've seen Shepard being tossed around by pretty grave hits before, even to the point of death - so why the curious fade-out? And those sounds you hear when you wake up? The way everything moves in slow motion - not only because you're limping?
I don't think any of that was unintentional.