23455 réponses à ce sujet

[LiarasShield]

LiarasShield wrote...



again the catalyst isnt the good guy the enemy that has been destroying advanced organics for generations and then saying their going to save us from advanced synthetics but then use the geth to kill us or fight us with their reaper code after nearly destroying the galaxy and do this a thousand times over do you really think the reapers are just gonna sit down and drink milk and cookies with us I hardly doubt so

In A situation where the enemy that your fighting or brought all your forces to beat it makes no sense to automaticlly give into said enemy with circular logic that can be torn apart and then forced into 3 choices that either sound suicidal and ends up traping all your forces or commiting mass genocide to races like the geth and the quarians

Or turing everybody into half machines or half organic hybrids against their will destroying individuality evolution to affect real change to destroy the whole essence of bringing different people together to accomplish a goal

And No one has ever been able to control the reapers so it makes no sense why it would be able to work now when the illusive man and saren both failed to do so and how is shepard controlling the reapers if his or her body is destroyed how in hells name are the reapers being controlled and in any of the endings where the main villian lives what makes you think they won't try to harvest or commit mass genocide again it just


*Deep breath* dear god I just oooooih *Facepalms


Maybe from now on on every post I make I shall have this picture accompanie it

Thought this was kinda cool

Yeah a sacrifical ending is fine if you end up saving the people you sacrifice for but giving into the enemy and then having the enemy pick what you should or force you into 3 terrible choices that personally as player and as shepard would probably never do I'm sorry

I'd rather fight the reapers to the end and depending on how high ems is how bad we lose or how good we win with keeping the relays intact so all the forces can go home and have loyal squad stay with us and the fleets

And why Can't mass effect 3 have a good ending or at least a victory ending mass effect 1 had one mass effect 2 had one 99% of mass effect 3 despite the noble and sad sacrifices had heroic and well done moments so why in the ending where everything is suppose to make sense where we are suppose to be reaching a decent conclusion does everything lose cohesion losing gallons of blood or not I wouldn't give in or accept the cataylst without questioning my own sanity because he created the reapers he is using the reapers to destroy organics for aeons on end and is still using the reapers to destroy my forces as we are having this very conversation with the catalyst


And ultimately why would I Trapt my own forces or let the enemy that has been destroying life for thousand of years or is destroying us during most of the final game why in hells name would I let them live so that they can potentially kill us all over again I just sweet christmas U_u

[LiarasShield]

LiarasShield wrote...

Once again this is the fan testimonies from the retake movement





This is Also a interview with the person that started the movement

But yeah I think any newcomers please watch these two links

[No_MSG]

Holger1405 wrote...

Archonsg wrote...



Its called the "forlorn hope".
For situations so FUBARed, you know you are going to die but stay in the fight anyways because no matter what you do you do not expect to live, but damned if you are just going to lay down and die.

I do understand the concept of officers and responsibility of holding the balance of life vs objectives.


Case in point, the during the Quarian theater of conflict, the Quarian commander decided that Shepard and team was expandable even when it wasn't necessary for them to come to this conclusion. It was his right of course being the commander on the ground but in doing so, showed how little he valued life over the objective of taking down a Geth super dreadnought. An objective, which success hinged on the very people whose lives he was so willing to throw away when he did not need to.


I do agree with you though that there are times when things are so FUBARed, there won't be a choice.

Just that in this case, it wasn't necessary, nor did it needed to be so, contrary to what some believe.

Victory done well and right, would have not just have brought the player out of the bleak dark trench he has been fighting in all this while, victory could be like rain after a firefight, washing away sweat, battle fatigue and tears of friends lost.

I also want to point out that this is a game.

Being so, It could have had multiple paths, all leading to different resolutions and this was possibly the biggest draw for everyone who bought the game especially if they are veterans from ME1 and 2. They were told there would be multiple paths, it was advertised as a game with multiple paths and to see the end as it was, where all the paths artificially merged into a single conflict resolution, is a slap to the face.

I think its all the little things that adds up for me, to make me so disgusted with the whole deal.
Given I do think that the game is a 90/100 up to that final last minutes, and while there were other nagging little inconsistencies, wasn't "story breaking" or out of character.

Do understand that I am a fan of MULTIPLE endings, not just one "FUBARed" ending.

ME2's complete jackass play is an example. You REALLY have to work at it to get everyone in your team and Shepard killed but damn, it was hilarious playing and watching that train wreck plough through till it finally crashed and burned with Shepard dead.

On the flip side, I could save everyone and win decisively.

As for the sacrifice option, I believe Dragon Age : Origins handled that one best. It is still one of my favorite game play since I know that my Warden was just too idealistic to save himself. He died a hero's death because HE (the player) CHOSE to. Unlike what we got in ME3 where death is forced onto Shepard. Thus for this reason, Shepard's death, cannot be counted as a "sacrifice".

Well the problem is that a "win decisively" ending would render any "you have to sacrifice something" ending pointless, because it would be unwise to sacrifice yourself or others if you can win this in so doing.
Bioware wanted their "Bittersweet" ending, looking to the Mass Effect storyline, I can understand why they made this decision.

I admit, I am on the good side of the line here, because if Bioware are true to their statement, and only adjusting the endings, they will most probably fix the issues I have with it. If not, and they actual changing the endings, well, I could life very well with a full-blown Happy End. 

Either way, I hope the DLC will bring you at least something you like.

Two things:
1.  The ending is going to be bittersweet no matter what happens.  I've lost quite a few personal friends in the course of this conflict.  Not a single person is getting out of this without massive scars, both physical and mental.  Given the events happening in the game, the best ending one can hope for is bittersweet (unless someone can modify the Deus Ex Machina cannon to bring people back to life.)

2.  I would have no problem with Shepards sacrificing themselves.  I had no problem when I died at the end of Bioshock 2.  I thought it was very well done.  In Mass Effect 3, my death wasn't even necessary.  Also, considering I'm committing suicide to A. continue to enslave a race of sentient organic-synthetic hybrid spaceships, B. commit mass Eugenics to make all life pleasing to some entity, or C. committing genocide on an untold number of species, it's less a sacrifice, and more of just a giant middle finger to everyone.  It's not a sacrifice if there's other ways out.  Then it's just pointless melodrama.

[darkway1]

Why can't the starchild just say to Shepard "tell you what guys,as I'm eternal,I'll give you organics and synthetics another 1000 years,if you two can get along I'll cut you some slack and admit I'm wrong,but if you two end up fighting again I'll come back and give every one a slap.....deal"?????

[LiarasShield]

darkway1 wrote...

Why can't the starchild just say to Shepard "tell you what guys,as I'm eternal,I'll give you organics and synthetics another 1000 years,if you two can get along I'll cut you some slack and admit I'm wrong,but if you two end up fighting again I'll come back and give every one a slap.....deal"?????

The thing that would finally at least make the most sense and would be agreeable

[3DandBeyond]

darkway1 wrote...

It sounds like I'm crazy but that idea of using advertising could work used in the right context.

A great example is a game called ALAN WAKE,each level in the game is handled like a tv episode,so you have a intro,middle and an end,including music and credits.....putting in a few commercials between levels would work as it's in context to the games format.

The subject does bring up many interesting idea's,I can see people wanting to advertise in games like Fifa,MW,Mariocart etc but who's gonna want to advertise in Resident Evil,Slaughter House,even Mass Effect is a mixed bag,people slam the game because there are no gay "LI" and then slam it because there are gay "LI".
I read some where a top 10 list of unethical videogames produced by a Christian group,in the number one slot was Fable,why,because you could hit your in-game wife,the group classed this as a game that featured wife beating???? ........I don't know how advertisers would respond to such diverse attitudes.Would controversial content be avoided if advertisers got evolved.???,we have seen the industry changed by the introduction of DLC,if advertising provided more money then it could have a huge impact on gaming content.

The problems you state do bear out some issues devs face.  I, as a fan would have no problem with a game that was partly subsidized by appropriately placed advertising, but there's precedence that makes me hate it.  Ads pop up everywhere, but it's a mixed bag as to how well they are done/placed and who they "help".  Of course they do provide revenue for the companies providing and using them, but the consumer doesn't often benefit, if at all.

If I had to live with a Pepsi poster hanging in the bacground or saw that Jack was drinking Bud Light, I could live with it, but only if it meant something real to me.  If a newly released game was $39.99 instead of $59.99, but that won't happen.  What all companies, including game companies do is try to maximize their profits and increase them every year, if not more often.  They do this for stock portfolios.  It's the Walmart effect in reverse.  But, it's not sustainable. 

Advertisers are well like loose women.  Bad press associated with what they advertise can work for them.  They can get their name out there as a company that wants an ad pulled.  Or, they may determine that the bad press is causing more people to buy and then see their ads.

It is unfortunately unlikely that any ingame ad will ever do anything to help the consumer.  This is reality.  The price of going to the movies doesn't go down and they use product placement.  Ebooks now have ads in them and the price of those continues to rise. 

[3DandBeyond]

Along with Archonsg's thoughts about DAO, I actually think they could have twisted preconceived notions and really caused people to think with an ending that appealed to both the heart and the brain.

I think it is quite possible that a very heroic and thoughtful Shepard could sacrifice his/her life in order to defeat the reapers. I don't even think this should have to mean a renegade Shepard would be one who died. I see many more possibilities that could have opened up. There might have been the careful thoughtful Paragon Shepard that misses a window of opportunity by trying to decide the right course and then is faced with the idea that success means sacrifice as the only way out. I can also see a Renegade that makes quick decisions based on expediency just messing things up and making the wrong decision which means the reapers win. And I could see some other gray areas in between. Make the decision in time, play a certain way, and happy victory with no sacrifice.

And actually this is partly played out in the ending of ME2. In my one playthrough I hesitated to go through the Omega IV relay once I got the IFF and went scanning for resources instead. When I got to the collector base and found the pods with the Normandy crew, a lot of the crew had already died, people like Gabby and Kelly. Dr. Chakwas was mad at me. I played it again and went straight through the relay and they were alive and the Dr. thanked me. I also made errors and took too long trying to kill enemies in some areas and at the end Garrus died. I went back and fixed things and went through more quickly and everyone survived. If they could do that with ME2, then why not ME3?

[darkway1]

3DandBeyond wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

It sounds like I'm crazy but that idea of using advertising could work used in the right context.

A great example is a game called ALAN WAKE,each level in the game is handled like a tv episode,so you have a intro,middle and an end,including music and credits.....putting in a few commercials between levels would work as it's in context to the games format.

The subject does bring up many interesting idea's,I can see people wanting to advertise in games like Fifa,MW,Mariocart etc but who's gonna want to advertise in Resident Evil,Slaughter House,even Mass Effect is a mixed bag,people slam the game because there are no gay "LI" and then slam it because there are gay "LI".
I read some where a top 10 list of unethical videogames produced by a Christian group,in the number one slot was Fable,why,because you could hit your in-game wife,the group classed this as a game that featured wife beating???? ........I don't know how advertisers would respond to such diverse attitudes.Would controversial content be avoided if advertisers got evolved.???,we have seen the industry changed by the introduction of DLC,if advertising provided more money then it could have a huge impact on gaming content.

The problems you state do bear out some issues devs face.  I, as a fan would have no problem with a game that was partly subsidized by appropriately placed advertising, but there's precedence that makes me hate it.  Ads pop up everywhere, but it's a mixed bag as to how well they are done/placed and who they "help".  Of course they do provide revenue for the companies providing and using them, but the consumer doesn't often benefit, if at all.

If I had to live with a Pepsi poster hanging in the bacground or saw that Jack was drinking Bud Light, I could live with it, but only if it meant something real to me.  If a newly released game was $39.99 instead of $59.99, but that won't happen.  What all companies, including game companies do is try to maximize their profits and increase them every year, if not more often.  They do this for stock portfolios.  It's the Walmart effect in reverse.  But, it's not sustainable. 

Advertisers are well like loose women.  Bad press associated with what they advertise can work for them.  They can get their name out there as a company that wants an ad pulled.  Or, they may determine that the bad press is causing more people to buy and then see their ads.

It is unfortunately unlikely that any ingame ad will ever do anything to help the consumer.  This is reality.  The price of going to the movies doesn't go down and they use product placement.  Ebooks now have ads in them and the price of those continues to rise. 

You hit the nail right on the head.........the problem with the world today is that it's only interested in MORE,advertising will be reduced to yet another way to make more money from a game.I think it will come,it's only a matter of time before people start to discover what brand of cig the Illusive man smokes or what hair products Jack uses...lol.

[Helios969]

darkway1 wrote...

Why can't the starchild just say to Shepard "tell you what guys,as I'm eternal,I'll give you organics and synthetics another 1000 years,if you two can get along I'll cut you some slack and admit I'm wrong,but if you two end up fighting again I'll come back and give every one a slap.....deal"?????

Amen.  Some sort of peaceful coexistence option (for now) would have been far, far preferable to the 3 lousy choices provided.

[ElMuchu]

Helios969 wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

Why can't the starchild just say to Shepard "tell you what guys,as I'm eternal,I'll give you organics and synthetics another 1000 years,if you two can get along I'll cut you some slack and admit I'm wrong,but if you two end up fighting again I'll come back and give every one a slap.....deal"?????

Amen.  Some sort of peaceful coexistence option (for now) would have been far, far preferable to the 3 lousy choices provided.

Interesting idea for an ending

[3DandBeyond]

One interesting thing that I have learned in trying to find a way to get to 5000EMS without playing any multiplayer is a direct contradiction of Casey Hudson's statement that people play the game or are more directed in ME3 to play the game through Shepard's eyes and to make decisions they think make sense to Shepard.

Well, I know some people have gotten 5000 EMS or I believe they have because they've said so and if it's possible someone can just happen upon it, but it's damn hard to do without meta-gaming.

Consider that apparently in order to get more war asset points, one must have Wrex die in ME1 so Wreav heads the Krogan, destroy Maelon's data, save the collector base, let Bakara die, fake the genophage cure saving Mordin's life because Bakara is dead, and I believe you must let the council from ME1 be killed, save the Salarian councilor in ME3, rewrite the heretic geth, maybe letting Tali die, and so on. Some points are debatable as I cannot yet find one clear consensus on all this. There is more, but just so you get the idea, it is almost more being a renegade or for many doing things that go really far against the way many people naturally play the game.

And all these that seem to be a lot of negative nasty choices contained within are ones that supposedly lead to a higher offline EMS and to the possibility of the gasp ending if destroy is picked. So, it seems the player is "rewarded" for being nasty. Please don't quote me because I cannot say for sure these all play out as websites say they do.

[BearlyHere]

No_MSG wrote...

Two things:
1.  The ending is going to be bittersweet no matter what happens.  I've lost quite a few personal friends in the course of this conflict.  Not a single person is getting out of this without massive scars, both physical and mental.  Given the events happening in the game, the best ending one can hope for is bittersweet (unless someone can modify the Deus Ex Machina cannon to bring people back to life.)

2.  I would have no problem with Shepards sacrificing themselves.  I had no problem when I died at the end of Bioshock 2.  I thought it was very well done.  In Mass Effect 3, my death wasn't even necessary.  Also, considering I'm committing suicide to A. continue to enslave a race of sentient organic-synthetic hybrid spaceships, B. commit mass Eugenics to make all life pleasing to some entity, or C. committing genocide on an untold number of species, it's less a sacrifice, and more of just a giant middle finger to everyone.  It's not a sacrifice if there's other ways out.  Then it's just pointless melodrama.

I also have no problem with sacrifice if it is a meaningful sacrifice. As ArchonSG pointed out, in DA:O, the hero's sacrifice is acknowleged after his or her death. It was bittersweet, but with a good balance of the bitter and the sweet.  I took that ending once, because besides wanting to experience it, I was playing my character, and he had no reason to trust Morrigan. So after the lovely funeral and credits, I reloaded and let him talk Alistair into taking her up on her offer. I must have played through that game ten times at least, and even the last time I was finding conversations I had never heard before.

In DA 2, you're betrayed by two of the potential LIs. Anders' betrayal was especially bitter in that you either take the side of the Unibomber, or you stab him in the back. Isabella causes the deaths of countless innocents through her selfish action, and either gets away, or gets accepted back into your good graces with no repurcussions for her actions. Yet I still found it compelling enough to play it three times.

Maybe it's a case of writer burnout that has led to such cynacism. The ME was a wild ride with numerous highs and lows. I just finished my third game last night with a new Shep to see if it was possible to get the good ending through assets alone. Short answer, no, not without MP. I can't think of anohter game company that has such talented writers creating so many interesting characters that I want to play their games over and over. It's like they say, we are part of the team. We are in a relationship with Bioware. But I've come to the conclusion that it's an abusive relationship.

To continue the metaphor from before, it's like dating someone who takes you to exciting places, and is so good most of the time. But you have to put up with his moodiness, thinly disguised anger at the world taken out on you, and an occasional slap. You tell him you're unhappy. He says he really cares, he really does. And then it happens again. And this last time, after a great evening ending in some really hot sex, he knocks you down and leaves you a dirty sanchez and flips you off as he walks out the door whistling. And the worst part is he thinks you should enjoy it as much as he did.

They won't change, not without counseling. The money people at EA must be wetting themselves at the drop in their stock price since the story was leaked. You only have to look at all the systems on the galaxy map you can't travel to yet to see their plans for expansions. Maybe EA will do something right and make Bioware get some help.

Modifié par BearlyHere, 26 mai 2012 - 09:55 .

[3DandBeyond]

BearlyHere wrote...

snipped---
They won't change, not without counseling. The money people at EA must be wetting themselves at the drop in their stock price since the story was leaked. You only have to look at all the systems on the galaxy map you can't travel to yet to see their plans for expansions. Maybe EA will do something right and make Bioware get some help.

Exactly.  At first I thought there was something wrong with my game because of all those star systems that were inaccessible.  I fully believe that they thought people would be fine with this "ending" with no explanation that it was tied to stories yet to come.  They alluded to it by telling people to keep their save games, but we're not children.  Say what you mean and quit trying to be cute.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 26 mai 2012 - 10:17 .

[3DandBeyond]

@BearlyHere,
I do also heartily agree with the idea that this is an abusive relationship. And I make no apology for anything other than stealing your analogy.

We were told that the games were a collaboration, as much based upon the thoughts of fans as on the thoughts of the devs. We've spent money that has been paying their salaries. We bought into the love of the game. We became characters in it. We made friends, fell in love, and lived in a world that was beset by an impending horror and we were happy to be there.

We were dropped off a high cliff at the end with no apologies, in fact we received disdain and were given implied insult as a reward for loving these games. We were taken for granted. We've been told to leave, grow up, stop whining, get a life, move on, talk to the hand, stop demanding, and more by surrogates for Bioware. We've waded through a miasma of information to see if we could find an indication of meaning and found the opposite.

Reviewers in Game Informer have told people to ignore us and buy the game. Others have said they don't get what our problem is. And yet, we've provided enough information as to what exactly is wrong-enough to fill a a mansion. We have dissected, probed, inspected, and culled information from within these games and that information refutes what is said at the end, but we are still told we just don't understand artistic vision.

We've been lied to and then told they never lied, as if something said that is not done does not constitute a promise because the words "I promise" were never spoken. We've been ignored.

What we have never been is included in any meaningful way on the big joke. We've never been specifically told that this was not really an ending, that the story would continue in DLC. We've never been told why this is what it is. We've never been told "sorry". We've endured a lot just because we hope something comes of this, hope that ME3 will return to what ME has been.

As for me I am stuck in the game in my mind at the point where Liara gives the gift to Shepard. I am heartbroken because I feel the pain there. It matters little who the characters are-it is the thought they may be saying farewell. And it is the thought that I have really no idea why they didn't just take off in a ship and run off to never never land for all the good any of this did them. They might have shared time and it would have made more sense.

[DatRandomGuy1]

To be honest.

Less calibrations for Garrus.

But he still won't talk to me without saying "Not Now"

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond brings up a good point.  Lots of "reviews" and "authorities" on gaming say that we should be ignored because they don't know what we have a problem with.  I'll spell it out.  Bold Faced Caps Style!




THE STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE ENDING OF THIS GAME, AND INDEED THIS SERIES, MADE BEFORE THE RELEASE OF THE GAME, WERE NOT AND ARE NOT ACCURATE TOWARD THE ENDING THE GAME AND SERIES HAVE PROVIDED.




And that's what it is.  It's not because the ending is too sad.  It's not because we are spoiled and pouting that we didn't get to survive the final conflict.  It's simply because Bioware said "The ending will be THIS!  It will be THAT!  It will be the OTHER THING!  There will be ZILLIONS OF OPTIONS!"  But it's not this.  It's not that.  There are no true options, merely superficial options.  The end of Mass Effect 3 is a Model T Ford.  We can have it in any color we want... so long as that color is black.

I'm aware that there are actual colors in the endings.  No matter what color you paint your ending, its guts are still identical to the guts of my Model T.

[Blackvista]

I just read about Mr Priestly freaking out about some threatening postcards... and the one that was singled out featured a "threat" to "desert" Bioware if they did an extended cut rather than new endings...

http://www.ibtimes.c...ase-bioware.htm

Can someone verify that? I mean, if that's all it was... that's kind of pathetic on Priestly's part. Threats of physical violence are never to be condoned but getting your knickers in a knot because some player promised to never buy another bioware game... that's ridiculous...

"threatening" to withdraw your business is not the same as threatening violence.
here's a comparison

"Sir, if you do not do as I ask, I will withdraw my custom."
vs.
"You miserable little $%^@!, if you don't do this, I'm going to use your skull as a bucket and and paint my house with your brains."

See.. there's a difference... one's a legitimate tactic (obviously, Mr Priestly has never worked in retail or he'd have heard some variant of this "threat" a million times) and the other is a serious offense. If Bioware is so disturbed by the "threat" of one player's lost business.. they really don't understand how upset a great many players are.

Anyway... I don't know what I want.. do I want to be proved wrong.. that some fan actually threatened physical violence and that Mr Priestly's reaction is justified... or do I want to believe that some fan threatened a one-man boycott and Mr Priestly decided to milk the word "threat..." I don't know.. I guess I wouldn't be surprised by either.. but they're both still... unnerving...

[LiarasShield]

LiarasShield wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...



again the catalyst isnt the good guy the enemy that has been destroying advanced organics for generations and then saying their going to save us from advanced synthetics but then use the geth to kill us or fight us with their reaper code after nearly destroying the galaxy and do this a thousand times over do you really think the reapers are just gonna sit down and drink milk and cookies with us I hardly doubt so

In A situation where the enemy that your fighting or brought all your forces to beat it makes no sense to automaticlly give into said enemy with circular logic that can be torn apart and then forced into 3 choices that either sound suicidal and ends up traping all your forces or commiting mass genocide to races like the geth and the quarians

Or turing everybody into half machines or half organic hybrids against their will destroying individuality evolution to affect real change to destroy the whole essence of bringing different people together to accomplish a goal

And No one has ever been able to control the reapers so it makes no sense why it would be able to work now when the illusive man and saren both failed to do so and how is shepard controlling the reapers if his or her body is destroyed how in hells name are the reapers being controlled and in any of the endings where the main villian lives what makes you think they won't try to harvest or commit mass genocide again it just


*Deep breath* dear god I just oooooih *Facepalms


Maybe from now on on every post I make I shall have this picture accompanie it

Thought this was kinda cool

Yeah a sacrifical ending is fine if you end up saving the people you sacrifice for but giving into the enemy and then having the enemy pick what you should or force you into 3 terrible choices that personally as player and as shepard would probably never do I'm sorry

I'd rather fight the reapers to the end and depending on how high ems is how bad we lose or how good we win with keeping the relays intact so all the forces can go home and have loyal squad stay with us and the fleets

And why Can't mass effect 3 have a good ending or at least a victory ending mass effect 1 had one mass effect 2 had one 99% of mass effect 3 despite the noble and sad sacrifices had heroic and well done moments so why in the ending where everything is suppose to make sense where we are suppose to be reaching a decent conclusion does everything lose cohesion losing gallons of blood or not I wouldn't give in or accept the cataylst without questioning my own sanity because he created the reapers he is using the reapers to destroy organics for aeons on end and is still using the reapers to destroy my forces as we are having this very conversation with the catalyst


And ultimately why would I Trapt my own forces or let the enemy that has been destroying life for thousand of years or is destroying us during most of the final game why in hells name would I let them live so that they can potentially kill us all over again I just sweet christmas U_u

Yeah 3dand and bearlyhere you guys both explain how I feel you both keep at the hard work

[Sigma2010]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

I am thinking you need to revue your posts or look up the definition of respect.

Thanatos144,
I am thinking you need to review yours.  People have been having discussions here.  You have always been insulting.  Whenever you've seemingly started to try to actually converse and someone starts using facts and figures, you get mad and insult their intelligence.  That's real respect.  You never have once admitted you could be wrong.

Case in point, you asserted it made sense for Joker to fly away with everybody, abandoning the fight and Shepard-that no one knew to be definitely alive or definitely dead.  You said it made sense because no one went to look for Shepard at the beginning of ME2 and Cerberus had to pay Liara to.  I pointed out that this was false. 

Others may not have looked for Shepard, but some of them had their own problems and didn't have the money or the ship to form an expedition and they may have rightly assumed it was useless because Shepard had to be dead which Shepard was.  And Joker was in no position to search at all.  But I pointed out that Liara was already looking for Shepard before being approached by Cerberus and the money Cerberus gave afterward was used to help locate and procure Shepard's body, not as some treasure for Liara.

You ignored this and just moved on - and started your one line insults again. 

You have always come here looking for a fight.  You are like a schoolyard bully who continually tries to intimidate others and when they stand up to you, you blame them.  Please, there's still time to change.  You don't have to agree with other people about the substance of ME3 - thank God we all have such diverse opinions on things - but discuss what you see as valid points and don't just keep trying to pick fights.

You are the one that was big on the idea that respect has to be earned.  You've earned none.

My questions for you are these.  If you are happy with the endings BW created why is it that you feel the need to continue to post to this thread? Are you in need of attention?

[BearlyHere]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Snip:
Reviewers in Game Informer have told people to ignore us and buy the game. Others have said they don't get what our problem is. And yet, we've provided enough information as to what exactly is wrong-enough to fill a a mansion. We have dissected, probed, inspected, and culled information from within these games and that information refutes what is said at the end, but we are still told we just don't understand artistic vision.

We've been lied to and then told they never lied, as if something said that is not done does not constitute a promise because the words "I promise" were never spoken. We've been ignored.

What we have never been is included in any meaningful way on the big joke. We've never been specifically told that this was not really an ending, that the story would continue in DLC. We've never been told why this is what it is. We've never been told "sorry". We've endured a lot just because we hope something comes of this, hope that ME3 will return to what ME has been.

As for me I am stuck in the game in my mind at the point where Liara gives the gift to Shepard. I am heartbroken because I feel the pain there. It matters little who the characters are-it is the thought they may be saying farewell. And it is the thought that I have really no idea why they didn't just take off in a ship and run off to never never land for all the good any of this did them. They might have shared time and it would have made more sense.

I in fact remember reading last year that this would be the end of this series, and the series, if it continued, would feature new characters and a new storyline. I think they have already decided on where they want 4 to go. But hey, in the mean time, here's some more reasonably priced DLC adventures from before we killed off your character. I don't think they had plans for any post-ending DLC. Sacrifice is one thing, bittersweet is one thing, but unlike DA:O, we have no choice about the sacrifice, and we get the bitter, while they get the sweet, with the LI walking off the Normandy after Joker.  Or at least that's what happened in my three endings.

I've learned that reviews, especially on GameInformer, have to be taken with a grain of salt for the reasons already pointed out. They want to sell games, so they're not going to tell you the ending sucks so you don't buy or cancel your preorder. Yet I was looking at an article about an upcoming MP weekend event at one of the sites, and I won't say it was GI because I'm not sure. The line that jumped out at me after reading about what to expect was "MP is the only reason we're still playing this game." I really wish I had bookmarked it. The price is dropping only two months out.  And I still say that many of us would have cancelled our preorders if we knew how bad the endings were.

It's all the more bitter because most of us really loved this game. Even though I'm a mom, I would have worn the N7 hoodie or bought the coffee mug. I would have bought the DLC, even though DA 2's latest DLCs have been underwhelming and bugged beyond belief. I actually know someone who has the N7 hoodie and the mug, and he named his car "Mako."  We were loyal to Bioware, but I no longer feel that they're loyal to us. So no, I won't be buying any of their products, including future games unless I hear through word of mouth that they haven't extended their collective middle finger at us. But as Diana Allers points out, it's easy to lose an E-democracy.

[Blackvista]

darkway1 wrote...

Why can't the starchild just say to Shepard "tell you what guys,as I'm eternal,I'll give you organics and synthetics another 1000 years,if you two can get along I'll cut you some slack and admit I'm wrong,but if you two end up fighting again I'll come back and give every one a slap.....deal"?????

haha.. that would have been awesome.

[BlueStorm83]

---  Wait a moment.  They're getting upset because people are "Threatening to Desert" bioware?  I'm sorry, but I was unaware that BioWare was my ship, squadron, or unit.  Here I thought that they were a business, and I was free to purchace or to not purchase anything that they might make.  How foolish of me.

In all seriousness... what did they expect?  If I go to a restaurant, and I order a Cheeseburger, and they bring me a fillet of fish, tell me it's a cheeseburger, and then tell me that I just don't understand food when I call them on their lies, I will simply eat elsewhere in the future.

This is not to say that I dislike fillet of fish.  Personally, I love Fish.  Fish is a delicious, DELICIOUS food.  But if I look through the menu, and see they've unveiled a new burger, the Mega Eater 3, and have very VERY fond memories of the Mega Eater 1 and the Mega Eater 2, and the description of the ME3 (see what I did there?) says that it's everything I loved about the ME1 and ME2 and MORE, how could I not be upset that I don't get the ME3 that they SOLD me, and then refuse to admit that they've delivered the wrong meal?

If they wanted to sell me on their FANTASTIC Fillet of Fish, they could have billed it as such.  They could have said, "The very same chefs who put their genius into both the ME1 and the ME2 have a bold new idea, a meal that's as much art as it is substence, here it is, we call it the Maritime Exceptional.  It's very much like the MEs that you know, in its high quality, but it has a totally different finish...ing flavor," I would cautiously try it.  And if I didn't like it afterward, I'd shrug, say, "I prefered the ME's that I know and love," and continue eating there, but get the products that I like.  Now I don't know WHAT will be on my plate, and I do not enjoy food roulette.


---  To say that anyone upset with BioWare to the point where they won't give you THEIR money is a DESERTER???  No, BioWare.  No.  I have never had the great honor and privilidge of serving my country, but I do appreciate that deserters and traitors should be hanged.  To call me a deserter because I called you on your bull**** has hit a sore spot with me.  I'm a deserter?  I'm a traitor?  No, **** you.  You deserted the fans who built your most successful franchise.  You betray them EVERY time you make a bull**** statement like this.  Stop trying to cover your collective asses and man up.

[3DandBeyond]

Blackvista wrote...

I just read about Mr Priestly freaking out about some threatening postcards... and the one that was singled out featured a "threat" to "desert" Bioware if they did an extended cut rather than new endings...

http://www.ibtimes.c...ase-bioware.htm

Can someone verify that? I mean, if that's all it was... that's kind of pathetic on Priestly's part. Threats of physical violence are never to be condoned but getting your knickers in a knot because some player promised to never buy another bioware game... that's ridiculous...

"threatening" to withdraw your business is not the same as threatening violence.
here's a comparison

"Sir, if you do not do as I ask, I will withdraw my custom."
vs.
"You miserable little $%^@!, if you don't do this, I'm going to use your skull as a bucket and and paint my house with your brains."

See.. there's a difference... one's a legitimate tactic (obviously, Mr Priestly has never worked in retail or he'd have heard some variant of this "threat" a million times) and the other is a serious offense. If Bioware is so disturbed by the "threat" of one player's lost business.. they really don't understand how upset a great many players are.

Anyway... I don't know what I want.. do I want to be proved wrong.. that some fan actually threatened physical violence and that Mr Priestly's reaction is justified... or do I want to believe that some fan threatened a one-man boycott and Mr Priestly decided to milk the word "threat..." I don't know.. I guess I wouldn't be surprised by either.. but they're both still... unnerving...

I'm sorry but there is no mention of someone threatening any violence that I can see in that article.  Last time I checked saying that you will do business elsewhere if your demands aren't met doesn't really constitute any violation of any kind.  Sure, it's very loosely a threat, but not against anyone.  We used to have a saying when I was younger, "that's not a threat it's a promise."  Really to characterize that as some sort of violent act is ridiculous and one of the things I'm talking about in saying they just want to put us in as negative a light as possible.  We are fans, you uh people.  Sure, I could even say it's poorly worded, but then we don't have the actual wording, do we?

I agree there's a difference between saying you need to see things my way or else and saying if you don't see things my way, I'm done with you.  People say the latter all the time, but it isn't an actual threat to do anything other than to leave.

[BlueStorm83]

Every single time someone from BioWare comments on our legitimate grievances, I feel less and less likely to frequent their materials again.

[LiarasShield]

because their really not listening to us I think that process ended after mass effect 2 U-u