23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Malditor]

Benchpress610 wrote...

Malditor wrote...
I suppose that is all the sales of the game? It's always a trend that people unhappy with a game will go online to talk about their displeasure. A better indication of the % of people unhappy would be an ingame survey at the conclusion.

I don’t want to start another sidetrack discussion here, but the fact that most people don’t go to forums and post their opinion doesn’t mean they approve or disapprove. You can assume approval just by silence.
 
This work similar as in political polls where a small sample of the voters is polled and the results are extrapolated. These polls in general are pretty accurate. Granted, in this case the most passionate fans are the ones posting and voting, but it works both ways. There are passionate fans of the ending as well, and they are voting and posting. So this IMO is a pretty good indicator.

Just to touch on this once, and let it drop so we don't have that sidetrack discussion going, I've been on a LOT of gaming forums and there is never a large number of "happy" customers there. Usually just a handful who like to keep up to date on whatever games they are playing. While I agree, you can't just assume all people not on forums are happy, you can pretty much be sure they are not overly upset with the product they received.

[Archonsg]

Malditor wrote...

Selfish? Sure I am, no doubt about that, I want more content to play, but I'm willing to pay for it. I have read several pages of this discussion, however I do not have enough free time to read over 800 pages of comments and replies. Sorry if what I've gotten from you in your recent comments/replies to me isn't indicative of your overall personality/stance on this subject. Perhaps I was off on my comment about that, if so I do apologize. It seems you have had some people who don't believe you have any right to complain at all, which I don't think. Given that, you may have just made a snap judgement of me as well?

Just a note on a few things.
The "Resurgance MP DLC" was meant to be a sold DLC (as was let on when they mistaken released it too early and had to refund those who bought it) .
They gave it away free.
Why? I don't know the real reasons but I can guess part of it is damage control for the current Endings mess.

Why would any company do that? 
Again, pure speculation, but, I would assume because they understand they already have bad press as it is and perhaps the numbers (you didn't think they gatthered our online play and usage data for fun did you?) show that a good number of players aren't playing the SP campaign anymore.

While in normal circumstances this might be a good thing and would signal the sale of a SP DLC content released, to keep our interest in the SP campaign, it is more then possible that it is because people found the ending to be the main cause of them not replaying. If that is the case, then any release of any SP DLC would not garner the numbers they would hope to get.

Now if this is the minority, say 10% why bother? 10% isn't a loss at all.
How about 20%?
30%?
I think the numbers are high, probably higher then 40% to justify this focus on a DLC to address the ending. 
EA isn't a company to look at or care about the "loud minority". They have the numbers from our online data, and usage. EA isn't the type to do anything that would "loose" them money unless the numbers indicate a far more possible worse situation if the ending wasn't addressed.

[LiarasShield]

Well the catalyst is evil allowing the reapers he created to kill organic life every 50 thousand years under the guise of were saving you your not really saving me if you kill me it is just I think the catalyst is truely the best villian because he doesn't come off as most bad guys does he appeals to shepard senses and most of the audience because he takes on the form of a human child and takes on the symbol of everything shepard is fighting for perhaps that is why shepard doesn't stop or fight the catalyst because the catalyst is brainwashing him or her or making him or her see that these 3 choice decisions are for the best when their really not instead of focusing on the fact that this is the being that made the reapers and has destroyed countless of civilizations spaning several eons

Modifié par LiarasShield, 17 mai 2012 - 07:49 .

[daveyeisley]

@malditor

If you hadn't mischaracterized yourself as open-minded, and then tried to mischaracterize me, I might concede my assessment was premature. However, you had admitted to being selfish, and danced around admitting that your prejudgement rendered you close-minded.

If I misjudged you, it has yet to be seen, but I allow for the possibility. As for a snap judgement, no, I based my analysis directly off of your posts, and I considered them before posting.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 17 mai 2012 - 07:50 .

[Malditor]

Archonsg wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Selfish? Sure I am, no doubt about that, I want more content to play, but I'm willing to pay for it. I have read several pages of this discussion, however I do not have enough free time to read over 800 pages of comments and replies. Sorry if what I've gotten from you in your recent comments/replies to me isn't indicative of your overall personality/stance on this subject. Perhaps I was off on my comment about that, if so I do apologize. It seems you have had some people who don't believe you have any right to complain at all, which I don't think. Given that, you may have just made a snap judgement of me as well?

Just a note on a few things.
The "Resurgance MP DLC" was meant to be a sold DLC (as was let on when they mistaken released it too early and had to refund those who bought it) .
They gave it away free.
Why? I don't know the real reasons but I can guess part of it is damage control for the current Endings mess.

Why would any company do that? 
Again, pure speculation, but, I would assume because they understand they already have bad press as it is and perhaps the numbers (you didn't think they gatthered our online play and usage data for fun did you?) show that a good number of players aren't playing the SP campaign anymore.

While in normal circumstances this might be a good thing and would signal the sale of a SP DLC content released, to keep our interest in the SP campaign, it is more then possible that it is because people found the ending to be the main cause of them not replaying. If that is the case, then any release of any SP DLC would not garner the numbers they would hope to get.

Now if this is the minority, say 10% why bother? 10% isn't a loss at all.
How about 20%?
30%?
I think the numbers are high, probably higher then 40% to justify this focus on a DLC to address the ending. 
EA isn't a company to look at or care about the "loud minority". They have the numbers from our online data, and usage. EA isn't the type to do anything that would "loose" them money unless the numbers indicate a far more possible worse situation if the ending wasn't addressed.

That's a very logical way to look at it, also they may have given away that multiplayer dlc free because of the uproar of the day one paid SP dlc. That would be symmetrical logic. As for as replaying the game itself I don't have any interest unless there is new content to explore, just because I tend to make the same decisions every play through, no matter how hard I try to force myself to make renegade decisions. That only leaves other classes to choose. I always go for balanced, never all weapons or all tech/biotic. I like the flexiblity. There are many reasons why businesses make decisions, sometimes obvious, sometimes enigmatic.


*edited because I butchered symmetrical's spelling*

Modifié par Malditor, 17 mai 2012 - 07:56 .

[LiarasShield]

I mean the catalyst has gotten away with more stuff then even hitler did on a planetary level lol

[Malditor]

daveyeisley wrote...

@malditor

If you hadn't mischaracterized yourself as open-minded, and then tried to mischaracterize me, I might concede my assessment was premature. However, you had admitted to being selfish, and danced around admitting that your prejudgement rendered you close-minded.

If I misjudged you, it has yet to be seen, but I allow for the possibility. As for a snap judgement, no, I based my analysis directly off of your posts, and I considered them before posting.

You can insist on my being close-minded all you want. I know that I've had some changes in my way of thinking on the subject. But because I won't reverse my opinion on what should be done it seems you think it's possible. That's fine, I don't insist others believe my way of thinking. If I were close-minded as you seem to believe, I would never admit there are things that could be fixed about the endings. I think it's good they are working on the EC in general, I just think it should be in tandem with regular DLC content. that way everyone can be catered to. Not just one faction.

[Mandalore007]

Voodoo-j wrote...

And yes the % may not be per the total amount of purchases, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Exactly, it doesn't represent everyone who bought the game but looking at those numbers you would have to be an idiot not to see that PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE THE ENDING.  Do the people that want the ending to stay the same think that 91% of gamers are wrong and they are right?

Benchpress610 wrote...

Malditor wrote...
I
suppose that is all the sales of the game? It's always a trend that
people unhappy with a game will go online to talk about their
displeasure. A better indication of the % of people unhappy would be an
ingame survey at the conclusion.

I don’t want to
start another sidetrack discussion here, but the fact that most people
don’t go to forums and post their opinion doesn’t mean they approve or
disapprove. You can assume approval just by silence.
 
This work
similar as in political polls where a small sample of the voters is
polled and the results are extrapolated. These polls in general are
pretty accurate. Granted, in this case the most passionate fans are the
ones posting and voting, but it works both ways. There are passionate
fans of the ending as well, and they are voting and posting. So this IMO
is a pretty good indicator.

Just to touch on this
once, and let it drop so we don't have that sidetrack discussion going,
I've been on a LOT of gaming forums and there is never a large number of
"happy" customers there. Usually just a handful who like to keep up to
date on whatever games they are playing. While I agree, you can't just
assume all people not on forums are happy, you can pretty much be sure
they are not overly upset with the product they received.

On gaming forums people complain about many different aspects of the various games and people can find a lot of nonsense to complain about sometimes, but Mass effect 3 is different because the majority of players loved the game, but they are all complaining about the same one thing, the ending.  And when last was there a hype this big over a game?  Im sorry its pretty obvious that the % shown are a good indicator of how people are feeling

Modifié par Mandalore007, 17 mai 2012 - 07:56 .

[daveyeisley]

Malditor wrote...
 As for as replaying the game itself I don't have any interest unless there is new content to explore, just because I tend to make the same decisions every play through, no matter how hard I try to force myself to make renegade decisions. That only leaves other classes to choose. I always go for balanced, never all weapons or all tech/biotic. I like the flexiblity. There are many reasons why businesses make decisions, sometimes obvious, sometimes enigmatic.

I had trouble with replaying the game at first, too. I will offer some ideas that may help in this issue -

1. It may require a second playthrough to do this, however, you are allowed something like 35 manual save files on Xbox 360. Make use of them all. Now that you have played the game, you know where the critical story decisions will be. Save often leading up to them, so you can try and get a save as close to the decision as possible. Then you can just reload the save and make a different choice to see how it plays out.

I did this with the reaper on rannoch, took me like 2 hours, but I got to see every option and every interrupt. Was worth it.

2. Different classes are a lot of fun in combat, but if you are just making a different class, you may not want to have to go through all the story again, etc. You can sort of combine this with #1. What I mean by that is, make your different class, and then do the saves thing so you can experience the different story choices. You can ignore the sidequests and system scanning to speed things up and stay more combat focused, too. It all depends on if you want to try and do both a new class, and try out different choices. Personally, the different classes were easier to test in combat by streamlining the playthrough and ignoreing sidequests, etc.

I had already done a completionist playthrough so I wasn't missing out by ignoring all the extras, and had a lot of fun with my new class. Renegade works best for streamlined playthroughs, of course.

[LiarasShield]

I'm still sure that the form the catalyst takes infront of shepard is not the catalysts true form but that makes me wonder what his or its true form is but yes I can't let go that the reapers he made has been destroying the galaxy for generations it is not a oversight I can overlook he is the villian and wouldn't give you a victory kind of ending he would be trying to doom shepard and her forces or causes them to suffer so no the catalyst to me isn't the good guy nor will I ever accept him to be

[Benchpress610]

Archonsg wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Selfish? Sure I am, no doubt about that, I want more content to play, but I'm willing to pay for it. I have read several pages of this discussion, however I do not have enough free time to read over 800 pages of comments and replies. Sorry if what I've gotten from you in your recent comments/replies to me isn't indicative of your overall personality/stance on this subject. Perhaps I was off on my comment about that, if so I do apologize. It seems you have had some people who don't believe you have any right to complain at all, which I don't think. Given that, you may have just made a snap judgement of me as well?

Just a note on a few things.
The "Resurgance MP DLC" was meant to be a sold DLC (as was let on when they mistaken released it too early and had to refund those who bought it) .
They gave it away free.
Why? I don't know the real reasons but I can guess part of it is damage control for the current Endings mess.

Why would any company do that? 
Again, pure speculation, but, I would assume because they understand they already have bad press as it is and perhaps the numbers (you didn't think they gatthered our online play and usage data for fun did you?) show that a good number of players aren't playing the SP campaign anymore.

While in normal circumstances this might be a good thing and would signal the sale of a SP DLC content released, to keep our interest in the SP campaign, it is more then possible that it is because people found the ending to be the main cause of them not replaying. If that is the case, then any release of any SP DLC would not garner the numbers they would hope to get.

Now if this is the minority, say 10% why bother? 10% isn't a loss at all.
How about 20%?
30%?
I think the numbers are high, probably higher then 40% to justify this focus on a DLC to address the ending. 
EA isn't a company to look at or care about the "loud minority". They have the numbers from our online data, and usage. EA isn't the type to do anything that would "loose" them money unless the numbers indicate a far more possible worse situation if the ending wasn't addressed.

Sir…you’re wise man. This is the most articulate and well thought-out analysis I’ve seen on this matter.

[LiarasShield]

Well renegade is the only one who deserves to lose everything funny how the person who does everything right or remained paragon the entire time still suffers the same fate lol

[Malditor]

daveyeisley, thanks for the advice on that. I always have a hard time being renegade though, as that's not my true mindset.

[Holger1405]

Archonsg wrote...

1) Alchera has an atmosphere at about 0.8 the density of earth and an atmosphere made up of methane / ammonia. 20% less resistance perhaps, perhaps less since different gases do have different properties and react differently to heat and resistance. We'll need someone with actual knowhow on how this work to get a "better" picture but I'll use a direct correlative in this case, 0.8 density = 20% less resistance untill we can get a better info yes?

The atmospheric density is crucial, so yes.

Archonsg wrote...
2) Alchera's gravity is also about 20% less than that of Earth's so that might throw our known object falling at for xxx amount of time = xxx amount of meter's traveled. (actual speed will vary) Is 20% less gravitational influence enough to "slow" Shepard's speed on re-entry? I do not know, I am not an astro-physicist but again, until we get better or actual info, we could just use the 20% difference as a direct correlation yes?

The Body would bounce off from the atmosphere if it would be much slower, (20000 Km/h was already conservative.)  That is independent from the Gravity of the Planet. So no.

Archonsg wrote...
3) Surface temperature of Alcheara is -22c, which means that the atmospheric temperature is again in correlation, lower and might again act as yet another buffer in keeping Shepard's body being burned away in re-entry.

Temperature in an atmosphere depends on many different factors. But on the point where the Atmosphere begins it has almost the terms of Space.

Archonsg wrote...
4) Shepard may be dead, but he is still fully armored and aside from what seems like a seals breach, is still fully functional. kinetic shields and material meant to withstand EVA work (space absolute temperatures range quite high)

temperatures and variations in space and thus it its conceivable that the armor has some way to keep temperatures on the inside a constant (or at least as best is its able to) near survivable conditions. 
an excerpt if you will : 

So, (to finally get to the answer!) temperatures vary so much in the absence of air because there is nothing to reflect, absorb, and scatter the entering heat and nothing to hold in the heat on the "night" side. This is why the day/night temperature of the Earth in the northern US during a typical June is 21°C / 11°C (70°F / 52°F), whereas that on the Moon (located at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth but lacking an atmosphere) is 115°C / -180°C (240°F / -290°F).

What all this means is that given all this, are asked to believe that it is possible for a body still encased in armor to re-enter such a planet and not have said body incinerated. 
I thought it to be plausible.

True, space absolute temperatures range is quite high, but the entry temperatures of Shepard's body must be approximately 2000 degree Celsius (3632  degree Fahrenheit).
The shields wouldn't withstand the heat for more than a few seconds, and the suite was already cracked and did not provide heat shield capabilities. (how long can you resist a Flamethrower attack in game? 4 - 5 seconds at best.)
And we note even talked about pressure and the fact that the residual oxygen in Shepard's body would be a good oxidant.  
imho, under this circumstances, nothing off Shepard's body would reach the ground.

Archonsg wrote...
As I mentioned in that other post above (the one with the picture of the Shepard's Xray-ed skeleton, page 815 ) it's not that they are asking us to remove ALL disbelieve, or that there isn't any suspension at all. 

In this fictional set piece, applying what is termed the "socratic exercise" if given all the above, given the rules of physics, could this happen? That is science fiction. It asks, what if ... within the realms of reality can something happen. 

Lastly, does the above look like I am "spinning" things, considering the use of the socratic exercise in determining whether or not this particular event is plausible?

Of course you are right, and no you don't "spinning" anything, it's just an interesting debate.

[daveyeisley]

Malditor wrote...

daveyeisley, thanks for the advice on that. I always have a hard time being renegade though, as that's not my true mindset.

Exactly my problem with all 3 titles when trying to see the parts I missed. I still have yet to do my full renegade ME1 run.... sigh.

Now, I try on my 1st playthrough, to make tons of saves so I can test each choice out. I still only stick with my paragon path, but at least I get to see how the renegade stuff plays out in the immediate sense. I have played like 4 classes at this point so I also got to see the consequences of some stuff play out, too.

Thats basically how it goes. 1st playthrough, completionist. Almost pure paragon. Lots of saves and experimenting with choices.

Subsequent playthroughs, different classes, and keep some of the renegade options to see how they affect things later.

The problem is, there are just too many times in the first playthrough where you dont realize an important juncture is about to come up....  or by the time you get the sense some big choice is about to be posed, you *can't* make a manual save anymore (due to combat, cutscene, squadmate actions, etc).

The final mission in london makes me so angry with all of its "No Save for Joo!" rubbish. I mean, really? Why, devs? Just to make it more frustrating?

[Malditor]

I hated that too, I always replay the ending to see all the possible endings for whatever path I've laid for myself throughout the game. However, having to play through the entire london mission drove me nuts. Still, I did it to see the endings, because I couldn't help it.

[daveyeisley]

@ holger

I am intrigued by your assertion that Shepard's body would 'bounce off' the planet's atmosphere if it was not going fast enough.

Do you have a link to your source for this?

I only ask because in modern spaceflight, the craft follows a re-entry vector that is designed to "glance off" the edge of the atmosphere to *avoid* extra friction as it penetrates. The thrusters are used to align the orbital path with this vector, but gravity does the rest as I understand it.

I am not positive, but I believe the gravity of the planet provides sufficient force to pull and object to its surface, even if the object is travelling a vector that intersects on a shallow angle with the atmosphere (which also reduces the friction created by slowly penetrating to denser layers rather than punching thru directly).

EDIT: Actually, I can see now a scenario where an object caught by the gravity well would "slingshot" around the planet, but still escape orbit, however.... this would have more to do with the object's vector upon contact with the planet's gravity well, the angle would have to be extremely shallow. Greater velocity would actually make it more likely to "slingshot" rather than become a decaying orbit, because the increased velocity would increase momentum, which is needed to escape the gravity well without thrust.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 17 mai 2012 - 08:34 .

[sdinc009]

Thanatos144 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Exactly my whole point is that some actuall science or stuff that coralates with actual science is used and implemented within the series lol

There is no actual science behind bringing Shepard back from the dead or that a race of people can use alien dna to reproduce. That is fiction made cause it was a good story. Nothing wrong with it I am just not deluded in it being anything other than what it is.

Here's the description of parthenogenisis for the Coastal Western Whiptail. Cnemidophorus is a genus of lizards which belong to the family of Teiidae, which are commonly referred to as whiptail lizards or racerunners. In some of the Cnemidophorus species, there are no males, and they reproduce through parthenogenesis. This is well known in bees and aphids, but is very rare in vertebrates. Those species without males are now known to originate through hybridization, or interspecific breeding. Occasionally, a mating between a female of one species and a male of another produces a parthenogen, a female that is able to produce viable eggs that are genetically identical to her own cells. The lizards that hatch from these eggs are thus also parthenogens that can again produce identical eggs, resulting in an asexual, clonal population. Parthenogenetic species resulting from a single hybridization are diploid (that is, they have two sets of chromosomes just as sexual species do), but sometimes these females mate with other males, producing offspring which are triploid (that is, they have three sets of chromosomes, or 50% more than equivalent sexual species; see polyploidy).

Bubbles, no actual science huh

[Archonsg]

Malditor wrote...
That's a very logical way to look at it, also they may have given away that multiplayer dlc free because of the uproar of the day one paid SP dlc. That would be semetrical logic. As for as replaying the game itself I don't have any interest unless there is new content to explore, just because I tend to make the same decisions every play through, no matter how hard I try to force myself to make renegade decisions. That only leaves other classes to choose. I always go for balanced, never all weapons or all tech/biotic. I like the flexiblity. There are many reasons why businesses make decisions, sometimes obvious, sometimes enigmatic.

So, judging by what you said, you are more paragon centric then renegade centric right?

Doesn't it bother you then, that the entire 3rd game is almost practically set in the Renegade mold regardless of what you did in the previous 2 games and the ending if we are to accept it as it is also set to reward the Renegade playstyle the most?

From Anderson's removal as Humanity's representative, replacing in his stead, Udina, as if Udina was our choice all along, to Cerberus acquisition of the human reaper lavae (which should have been blown to hell along with the Collrctor's base to each of those three "choices" that require you to commit a betrayal to a higher principle.


1) Control : betrays the principle of free will
2) Destroy : betrays the principle of trust
3) Synthesis: betrays the principle of freedom to choose ones own path, ironically, the freedom of choice


As a paragon centric player, I found the alarming number of "renegade" centric ideals of expediency of a mission success based on victory at any cost, repugnant. Not to mention, dissatisfaction that my play style was not catered to. This from a game series, with 2 previous games giving me the option.

Aren't you just a little miffed that you might have been short changed?
 

 

Modifié par Archonsg, 17 mai 2012 - 08:46 .

[Malditor]

Archonsg wrote...

Malditor wrote...
That's a very logical way to look at it, also they may have given away that multiplayer dlc free because of the uproar of the day one paid SP dlc. That would be semetrical logic. As for as replaying the game itself I don't have any interest unless there is new content to explore, just because I tend to make the same decisions every play through, no matter how hard I try to force myself to make renegade decisions. That only leaves other classes to choose. I always go for balanced, never all weapons or all tech/biotic. I like the flexiblity. There are many reasons why businesses make decisions, sometimes obvious, sometimes enigmatic.

So, judging by what you said, you are more paragon centric then renegade centric right?

Doesn't it bother you then, that the entire 3rd game is almost practically set in the Renegade mold regardless of what you did in the previous 2 games and the ending if we are to accept it as it is also set to reward the Renegade playstyle the mos?

From Anderson's removal as Humanity's representative, replacing in his stead, Udina, as if Udina was our choice all along, to Cerberus acquisition of the human reaper lavae (which should have been blown to hell along with the Collrctor's base to each of those three "choices" that require you to commit a betrayal to a higher principle.


1) Control : betrays the principle of free will
2) Destroy : betrays the principle of trust
3) Synthesis: betrays the principle of freedom to choose ones own path, ironically, the freedom of choice
As a paragon centric player, I found the alarming number of "renegade" centric ideals of expediency of a mission success based on victory at any cost, repugnant. Not to mention, dissatisfaction that my play style was not catered to. This from a game series, with 2 previous games giving me the option.

Aren't you just a little miffed that you might have been short changed?
 

 

Not all my decisions were what you think they were, I don't do ALL paragon. I kept the collector base and put udina in the office. So those things didn't appear strange to me at all.

[daveyeisley]

Yeah, the only ending I can envision where Shepard gets what he wants without dying (if he has the EMS for it) is if he let the geth die, didn't encourage or make friends with EDI, and then chooses destroy.

All other playstyle/ending combinations penalize Shepard.

Wish there was a way for a geth-saving, EDI-friend Shepard to get what they want and not die...

[Malditor]

daveyeisley wrote...

Yeah, the only ending I can envision where Shepard gets what he wants without dying (if he has the EMS for it) is if he let the geth die, didn't encourage or make friends with EDI, and then chooses destroy.

All other playstyle/ending combinations penalize Shepard.

Wish there was a way for a geth-saving, EDI-friend Shepard to get what they want and not die...

Best possible idea I have for that is if instead of him/her being lost in the jump into the green beam he/she emerges from the other end changed like everyone else. Which, given Bioware's history of resurrecting Shepard is completely plausible.

Edit
This of course would be based on the fact that you saved the geth and have EDI befriended * I encouraged her and Joker to pursue a relationship* and alive. Those things would factor in and provide you with a "second chance" as it were.

Modifié par Malditor, 17 mai 2012 - 08:57 .

[3DandBeyond]

Benchpress610 wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

     Guys, Thanatos is clearly just trolling you all.  I mean, for God's sake, the third codex entry you get in Mass Effect 1 explains how Asari don't actually need to physically mate with anyone to reproduce, but rather they randomize a copy of their own DNA to more closely emulate their partner.  The THIRD CODEX ENTRY EVER.

     He's trolling, plain and simple.  Don't even reply to him.

Oh, we've known this person for ever. He's been trolling this thread for two months now. Bubbles, bubbles

I've come to believe that occasionally it's ok to answer bubbles, because it has the opposite effect of what he wants-it perpetuates the thread and discussion.

[Archonsg]

Malditor wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

Malditor wrote...
That's a very logical way to look at it, also they may have given away that multiplayer dlc free because of the uproar of the day one paid SP dlc. That would be semetrical logic. As for as replaying the game itself I don't have any interest unless there is new content to explore, just because I tend to make the same decisions every play through, no matter how hard I try to force myself to make renegade decisions. That only leaves other classes to choose. I always go for balanced, never all weapons or all tech/biotic. I like the flexiblity. There are many reasons why businesses make decisions, sometimes obvious, sometimes enigmatic.

So, judging by what you said, you are more paragon centric then renegade centric right?

Doesn't it bother you then, that the entire 3rd game is almost practically set in the Renegade mold regardless of what you did in the previous 2 games and the ending if we are to accept it as it is also set to reward the Renegade playstyle the mos?

From Anderson's removal as Humanity's representative, replacing in his stead, Udina, as if Udina was our choice all along, to Cerberus acquisition of the human reaper lavae (which should have been blown to hell along with the Collrctor's base to each of those three "choices" that require you to commit a betrayal to a higher principle.


1) Control : betrays the principle of free will
2) Destroy : betrays the principle of trust
3) Synthesis: betrays the principle of freedom to choose ones own path, ironically, the freedom of choice
As a paragon centric player, I found the alarming number of "renegade" centric ideals of expediency of a mission success based on victory at any cost, repugnant. Not to mention, dissatisfaction that my play style was not catered to. This from a game series, with 2 previous games giving me the option.

Aren't you just a little miffed that you might have been short changed?
 

 

Not all my decisions were what you think they were, I don't do ALL paragon. I kept the collector base and put udina in the office. So those things didn't appear strange to me at all.

Alright, so do you think it's selfish for the rest NOT to have their play style reflected for their game play?

[Malditor]

Archonsg, I don't think it's wrong to want something to end how you think it should, I just think it's wrong to demand it. Perhaps the EC will explain why those changes happened... Perhaps the IM somehow saved the tech from the collector ship somehow and maybe Anderson relinquished his spot to prepare for the reaper invasion? Maybe they'll show these things in the EC or some other format. Would that make you feel better about the end? Probably not. The game didn't end out I wanted it, but it pretty much ended how I expected it would. I can reconcile that myself though. I make connections and reasons in my own mind to make things make sense. I don't expect everyone to be able to do that or even want to do that though.

Modifié par Malditor, 17 mai 2012 - 09:12 .