--- I don't mind the option to spend real money on the packs in ME3's Multimode, because there's no pack that you CAN'T get with Credits. I mean, if it was the Recruit, Veteran, and Specter packs for credits but the Super Specter pack was cash only I'd throw a fit. Winning a Gold match seems to give pretty good money, and I don't promote my 20s all that quickly, so I've usually got a couple guys who are able to take on the tougher modes.
I was just in a match with a guy whose N7 Score was 2990. I was a little stunned. How many EMS would that give him?
The highest uk score is well over 10k.
It depends on if he is talking about the N7 number that's in red that you see when playing in MP-that is number of games played or won, but it is unrelated to EMS or TMS. For instance, my N7 is like aroung 297, and I have promoted I think 17 teams now. So I got 1275 TMS (EMS depends of course on galactic readiness) from that, but I could have never promoted any at all.
To add my own two cents to the microtransactions discussion, it's one thing if they're in a "free" game. I was playing about five or six of those free social media games. But in the last couple of years, it seems like there's a hand out constantly, and incessant pop-ups offering special deals on whatever coin is used in the game. I've bought a few, and bought a few of those random chances to win the big teddy bear that was being dangled in front of me, and gotten a bucket of crap instead.
I have a neighbor on a fixed income who plays one that I used to, and helping her out in the game, I was shocked by the number of items she had that could only be obtained through purchased coins. I wouldn't be surprised if she had spent close to $100 on game cash to buy them all. That's what's evil about microtransactions, and like a drug, you don't realize how much you're using or what it's costing you.
I also don't mind paying for real dlc, new areas, new missions, etc, But to put their hand out for more money for a Spectre pack when I've already spent $80 for the game and 1st dlc is just being greedy. I remember the days when you would get a free dlc as a reward for pre-ordering. Those days are gone.
This is appalling. I had no idea how certain other microtransactions are being handled, but that makes me sick.
My points merely dealt with ME3 itself. I do personally prefer that MP of course be completely separate from SP unless that is a specific feature of a game and spelled out when you purchase it-like on the package. A few games that are this way spring to mind, but even they don't specifically have to be played online-Little Big Planet (1 and 2) and Dark Souls (Demon's Souls, too). Online play is a part of these games for "single player".
However, ME3 is not like these games and neither of those games require that you buy anything in order to finish them-MP itself is not even needed to do this, but it merely rounds out the gaming experience.
As for ME3, MP is used as a tool-needed for SP so players are coerced into playing it. And then, they are shown the crack cocaine of gaming-consumable packs for credit or actual money. Again, I'd rather pay for the MP maps than have this crap, but for me it isn't so bad because I can avoid buying them. I do strenuously object to the methods used to strongarm people into buying them and that consumable items are included. You want them to be appearance packs or weapon packs or special characters-fine. But consumables are really pushing it.
This would all be moot though if MP was not tied to SP. Because a great many people would just ignore it-that's why it is what it is.
BlueStorm83 wrote...--- I don't mind the option to spend real money on the packs in ME3's Multimode, because there's no pack that you CAN'T get with Credits. I mean, if it was the Recruit, Veteran, and Specter packs for credits but the Super Specter pack was cash only I'd throw a fit. Winning a Gold match seems to give pretty good money, and I don't promote my 20s all that quickly, so I've usually got a couple guys who are able to take on the tougher modes.I was just in a match with a guy whose N7 Score was 2990. I was a little stunned. How many EMS would that give him?
That would be how many games he's played, but no way to know how many teams he promoted. Each promotion gives you 75 TMS.
N7 rank is + 1 for each level per character, + 10 per promotion. While each promotion is + 75 points towards your N7 EMS asset.
My own N7 rank is 2800+ + and EMS N7 asset is around 6500+/- (need to get home and check in game for exact figures) so my total EMS at 100% galactic readiness is about 14,000+ /-.
Which is why I think pairing MP, and only MP to have such a huge effect on EMS for a Single-Player game is just wrong.
N7 rank is + 1 for each level per character, + 10 per promotion. While each promotion is + 75 points towards your N7 EMS asset.
My own N7 rank is 2800+ + and EMS N7 asset is around 6500+/- (need to get home and check in game for exact figures) so my total EMS at 100% galactic readiness is about 14,000+ /-.
Which is why I think pairing MP, and only MP to have such a huge effect on EMS for a Single-Player game is just wrong.
Boy was I off on that. I always thought that just meant games played. I know what the N7 asset is because you had explained that before. That N7 rating then would have to be cumulative for all characters you've had before right? Because that doesn't reset after you promote a team. Ok, that is confusing me because it doesn't add up at all for me.
Archonsg wrote...N7 rank is + 1 for each level per character, + 10 per promotion. While each promotion is + 75 points towards your N7 EMS asset. My own N7 rank is 2800+ + and EMS N7 asset is around 6500+/- (need to get home and check in game for exact figures) so my total EMS at 100% galactic readiness is about 14,000+ /-. Which is why I think pairing MP, and only MP to have such a huge effect on EMS for a Single-Player game is just wrong.
Boy was I off on that. I always thought that just meant games played. I know what the N7 asset is because you had explained that before. That N7 rating then would have to be cumulative for all characters you've had before right? Because that doesn't reset after you promote a team. Ok, that is confusing me because it doesn't add up at all for me.
My bad. Wasn't clear on that last post.
Each vocation team's level = +1 to your rank.
So, having a lvl 20, engineer, a lvl 20 infiltrator and a lvl 20 adept for example gets you 60 N7 rank. You might have multiple engineers but that team only counts as 1 character. Once you promote that team, it resets the entire team to level 1, netting you ab additional 10 N7 rank and 75 ems points towards the N7 asset.
I am not sure if you get bonuses for doing gold / silver challanges as I didn't pay attention, though i am pretty sure you don't.
If its just grinding out in gane cash, just do bronze challanges as all you need is 2 good players to carry the challenge with more bodies just making it easier.
Silver oddly is harder then gold as most people don't seem to want to work together and want to be the "high scorer" whike on gold most times you win because your tean mates know the "score" means next to nothing.
Bronze through is essy, you can easily win without a single missile fired and if you have an engineer team against geth, its a walk in the park.
Archonsg wrote...N7 rank is + 1 for each level per character, + 10 per promotion. While each promotion is + 75 points towards your N7 EMS asset. My own N7 rank is 2800+ + and EMS N7 asset is around 6500+/- (need to get home and check in game for exact figures) so my total EMS at 100% galactic readiness is about 14,000+ /-. Which is why I think pairing MP, and only MP to have such a huge effect on EMS for a Single-Player game is just wrong.
Boy was I off on that. I always thought that just meant games played. I know what the N7 asset is because you had explained that before. That N7 rating then would have to be cumulative for all characters you've had before right? Because that doesn't reset after you promote a team. Ok, that is confusing me because it doesn't add up at all for me.
My bad. Wasn't clear on that last post.
Each vocation team's level = +1 to your rank.
So, having a lvl 20, engineer, a lvl 20 infiltrator and a lvl 20 adept for example gets you 60 N7 rank. You might have multiple engineers but that team only counts as 1 character. Once you promote that team, it resets the entire team to level 1, netting you ab additional 10 N7 rank and 75 ems points towards the N7 asset.
I am not sure if you get bonuses for doing gold / silver challanges as I didn't pay attention, though i am pretty sure you don't.
If its just grinding out in gane cash, just do bronze challanges as all you need is 2 good players to carry the challenge with more bodies just making it easier.
Silver oddly is harder then gold as most people don't seem to want to work together and want to be the "high scorer" whike on gold most times you win because your tean mates know the "score" means next to nothing.
Bronze through is essy, you can easily win without a single missile fired and if you have an engineer team against geth, its a walk in the park.
Ok, I've promoted 17 teams, so at 20 per that would be 340, but my N7 is 297. I wonder if that is one thing they factor individually on each console. Mine just seems totally messed up. I've promoted at least 10 on the xbox and so something appears off since I have one at 19 now and others at like 7 and up.
And you are so right about silver-people get mad and quit because they don't have the most kills, they don't want to do missions, or revive anyone and it fails more than the other 2.
But bronze is getting stupid too.
And not your fault I didn't get it-it's mine. I just always assumed something and I assumed wrong. I appreciate you explaining it to me.
@3dandbeyond
Nah, not your fault.
MP is buggy as hell. For example, I didn't get any of the commendation packs from operations I participated in and only finally got tge one for Operation Mastiff because I poked EA's customer support.
Bringing this back on track, I recently saw a retweet of someone who is apparently working on the EC and its supposed to be completed. It just needs a little "polish". S/he seems proud of it and think we'll be pleased.
Having played Mass Effect 3 multiple times(12 to be exact), I forgave the ending, because the rest of the game, I felt was pretty awesome. Having played through Witcher 2 for the THIRD time, I'm beginning to see how utterly pathetic Mass Effect 3's ending truly is. Granted, when Witcher 2 was released, people complained about the ending to that game, and CD Projekt Red admitted there was an issue, apologized and released the Enhanced Edition, which totally fixed the ending issues to Witcher 2. BioWare said the Extended Cut is going to add some clarification to the current endings. I'm willing to wait and see what BioWare has up their sleeve with the Extended Cut, but I can pretty much guarantee it's not going to be anywhere NEAR as drastic as what CDPR did with Witcher 2. Now, I wasn't going to really say anything about the whole issue, but "artistic vision" is the worst possible excuse for not fixing the endings. That's basically telling the fans to go **** themselves. That's really not the message BioWare should be sending to ANYBODY. I keep saying I'm not overly fussed about Mass Effect 3's ending, and to a certain extent that's true, but then again, I haven't touched Mass Effect 3 in weeks.
I recently, about a month ago, started the Mass Effect series with number two. Being quickly captivated with the story I played for hours and hours and shortly after completing it, bought Mass Effect 3. Playing at steady pace I quickly finished Mass Effect 3. What brought me to post on the forums as you might have guessed was the ending of three. In Mass Effect 2, I managed to save all of the crew, and in the ending scene walked by them. It wasn’t an ambitious ending, but I felt it was clearer than three in the sense that you knew your crew was alive and that you would most likely be seeing them again. If three had a similar ending (i.e. showing the crew together drinking in victory or something) I wouldn’t be writing this.
I proceeded with the final mission (forget the name) with high Paragon, about 4,000 total Military Strength (3995 to be exact), and 100% readiness. Still all I got was an undesirable and unclear ending. The Mass Effect 3 ending I choose (although I do feel it was a very limited choice) was to destroy all synthetic life. I would have preferred, as suggested by the YouTube video linked below, to only destroy the reapers, but it wasn’t available. The only crew members I know survived are James, “Joker”, and Liara. I like each of these characters quite a bit, but it’s not enough. Besides, the best they got was being forsaken on a planet somewhere with a broken Normandy 2. Assuming they were able to fix the Normandy 2 there would be no mass relays to help them travel to different parts of the Galaxy. The biggest problem with this ending, in my eyes, is that I don’t know what happened to shepard other than he became a legend. I’m not satisfied with that. I don’t need the ending to tell me that he is going to be remembered as a legend! He was already very well known for being the first human specter and I can assume that after shepard united the galaxy and saved Earth, among other planets, that he would go down in history.
I am aware through a lot of reading and watching Bioware’s meeting on Mass Effect that the announced extended cut, “is not a re-imagining of the ending or a new ending.” Regardless of this news I felt it important to express my opinion. I hope that although they are not going to re-design the ending from the ground up, they might at least take ideas on closure. I would like to see Bioware allow a couple of their endings (paragon/plenty of reinforcements – most positive ending) where Shepard is with some of his squad members. More specifically shepard reunited with whomever they (they being the player) had a romantic relationship with. If a player didn’t have any romantic relationships, it might show Shepard having that drink with Garrus, as promised before the assault in London.
To cut a long story short BBB say yes but ASA say no. Also that this controversy has gone on for so long that it should be looked upon by all game developers as an object lesson.
To cut a long story short BBB say yes but ASA say no. Also that this controversy has gone on for so long that it should be looked upon by all game developers as an object lesson.
Your last sentence is something I hope for as well. For too long it's been a race to the bottom with some things in video gaming. There are few companies that write big story games, but there's a huge audience for them. With such big stories, devs need to pay attention to what they say in them. Consistency in the story as well as in its presentation is a must. Diverge from both and fans will not be happy and aren't so eager to remain silent anymore.
What Bioware has done has repercussions. I got burned by a lot of games throughout the past year (I mean 2011 and 2012) and even before that. Games in some sequels were bad or released broken. Not all could be fixed. One was incredibly forgettable. ME3 drove the final nail in the coffin. Pre-ordering any game is out for me. I have also been more resistent to gaming reviews and always wanted to see gameplay before buying some games. Now, neither is sufficient to sway me-in fact, they are meaningless unless the reviewers are unofficial, unpaid ones and gameplay for story games may well have to include some understanding of how the ending is perceived.
I may find it very hard to buy any game near release day.
I recently, about a month ago, started the Mass Effect series with number two. Being quickly captivated with the story I played for hours and hours and shortly after completing it, bought Mass Effect 3. Playing at steady pace I quickly finished Mass Effect 3. What brought me to post on the forums as you might have guessed was the ending of three. In Mass Effect 2, I managed to save all of the crew, and in the ending scene walked by them. It wasn’t an ambitious ending, but I felt it was clearer than three in the sense that you knew your crew was alive and that you would most likely be seeing them again. If three had a similar ending (i.e. showing the crew together drinking in victory or something) I wouldn’t be writing this.
I proceeded with the final mission (forget the name) with high Paragon, about 4,000 total Military Strength (3995 to be exact), and 100% readiness. Still all I got was an undesirable and unclear ending. The Mass Effect 3 ending I choose (although I do feel it was a very limited choice) was to destroy all synthetic life. I would have preferred, as suggested by the YouTube video linked below, to only destroy the reapers, but it wasn’t available. The only crew members I know survived are James, “Joker”, and Liara. I like each of these characters quite a bit, but it’s not enough. Besides, the best they got was being forsaken on a planet somewhere with a broken Normandy 2. Assuming they were able to fix the Normandy 2 there would be no mass relays to help them travel to different parts of the Galaxy. The biggest problem with this ending, in my eyes, is that I don’t know what happened to shepard other than he became a legend. I’m not satisfied with that. I don’t need the ending to tell me that he is going to be remembered as a legend! He was already very well known for being the first human specter and I can assume that after shepard united the galaxy and saved Earth, among other planets, that he would go down in history.
I am aware through a lot of reading and watching Bioware’s meeting on Mass Effect that the announced extended cut, “is not a re-imagining of the ending or a new ending.” Regardless of this news I felt it important to express my opinion. I hope that although they are not going to re-design the ending from the ground up, they might at least take ideas on closure. I would like to see Bioware allow a couple of their endings (paragon/plenty of reinforcements – most positive ending) where Shepard is with some of his squad members. More specifically shepard reunited with whomever they (they being the player) had a romantic relationship with. If a player didn’t have any romantic relationships, it might show Shepard having that drink with Garrus, as promised before the assault in London.
Youtube:
What's even worse and what we have pointed to here is that the main consequences of that ending or those endings if one must, are based upon EMS and finally MP. EMS (or more appropriately TMS) is partly a consequence of choices made in the game but also heavily based upon reaper tag "missions". I got so good at evading reapers on the galaxy map, so that must mean Shepard is a real hero, right? And Shepard can scan with the best of them.
Ok, so all sarcasm aside, TMS is heavily resting on those things that cannot even be called quests. Don't do enough of anything and you may find you have only one "choice"-Destroy and if you choose it the Earth is vaporized.
But on top of that, get a good enough TMS and play enough multi-player and the blast that kills Shepard is apparently a lot less powerful and Shepard's torso can survive and seemingly falls to Earth in a heap (or is somewhere in a heap).
I think what we all point to is that we want an actual ending that is based on choices made in the game. I've long said that it is the inclusion of artificial, limiting choices at the end rather than a natural progression of choices that is part of what I hate. You played a Paragon Shepard-so, what happens should naturally spring from that. But, you get the same choices (based on EMS and MP) as someone who played it differently.
And your point as to what happens to Shepard and friends is crucial. The endings should vary wildly. Scenarios should exist where utter sadness and devastation is all that can be accomplished as well as where total victory and survival is possible. Shepard dies, the reapers lose. Shepard lives, the reapers will win. Shepard lives, friends and LI live, the reapers lose. And other variations. These should have been possible.
The way I saw it or thought it would be is that the way I had played Shepard would lead towards a certain consequence, but then there were also consequences from choices that I would make in the final push that would have determined the outcome. I saw it in some ways like the ending of ME2-team members could die if you had not secured their loyalty and sometimes there were 2 ways to achieve that loyalty-you might talk Garrus out of killing his foe or move aside and let him do it. Or Zaeed. Or maybe you lost Jack's or Miranda's loyalty and couldn't regain it. But then, once at the Collector's base, you had decisions to make-who would create the biotic bubble? Who would lead the other teams, take the crewmembers back to the Normandy? How fast could you get through that part with the biotic bubble? These all determined who would live or die and everyone could die. I've seen videos where the only surviving member was Joker.
And the scene at the end of ME2, on the Normandy was actually very poignant for me. It would be way too short for an ending for ME3, but it was still far better than what we got. I was especially touched by the way Jack looked at Shepard. But, they all gave meaningful looks. This spoke volumes.
What I'd hoped for was an actual final fight with war assets engaged and thanix cannons in action, and decisions. And I had hoped for more with my teammates-not just some phoned to say goodbye moment. That was well done, but woefully inadequate and rather stupid. After some major fighting, I'd hoped for that final "calm down" moment-the one that never came-the denouement and then a true epilog.
To cut a long story short BBB say yes but ASA say no. Also that this controversy has gone on for so long that it should be looked upon by all game developers as an object lesson.
Your last sentence is something I hope for as well. For too long it's been a race to the bottom with some things in video gaming. There are few companies that write big story games, but there's a huge audience for them. With such big stories, devs need to pay attention to what they say in them. Consistency in the story as well as in its presentation is a must. Diverge from both and fans will not be happy and aren't so eager to remain silent anymore.
What Bioware has done has repercussions. I got burned by a lot of games throughout the past year (I mean 2011 and 2012) and even before that. Games in some sequels were bad or released broken. Not all could be fixed. One was incredibly forgettable. ME3 drove the final nail in the coffin. Pre-ordering any game is out for me. I have also been more resistent to gaming reviews and always wanted to see gameplay before buying some games. Now, neither is sufficient to sway me-in fact, they are meaningless unless the reviewers are unofficial, unpaid ones and gameplay for story games may well have to include some understanding of how the ending is perceived.
I may find it very hard to buy any game near release day.
I do not think that Bioware is listening though, nor do they give a hoot.
By using false advertising, by preying on those who had Faith in the company - by lying to the Fans; they got their cash already. Thye relied heavily on preorders, and they fed the hype as much as they could. "Take back Earth!" HA! Take whats left of it, you mean. There never was such false advertising as their garbage.
Why else would they say "We are not fixing it!"? They claimed we were too dumb, we did not get it - then they pulled the 'artistic integrity' card. All of these things boil down to one simple fact: they don't care. Bioware does not care. They have max cash in hand for the least effort. We got an unfinished game, non-polished - one that they threw a dime store ending on.
Worse than that is their attitude. Its one thing to kill Shepard. That would be entirely an acceptable outcome should you choose it - just like in 2 if you did the minimal game. I can accept that. But when I do everything right? No matter what I do or how hard I work, I get the same ending. Shepard gets raped, and Joker flies off with his L.I. to ball her out nightly in a tropical paradise. You know how on vacation you don't take your phone? No contact with anyone, just fun in the sun. Well, thats where your best friend is with your woman. Forever. Thanks Bioware. Could you have flipped me off any worse? Is it possible?!
Lastly, we see the game reviewers are in the pockets of the developers. They all touted ME3 as an amazing and incredible story with a win ending. Survey says.... *BUZZZZ* - wrong answer, pal. All of you are going to suffer over these lies and deceit. The industry has forgotten where the money comes from. It has forgotten who puts food on their table. Worse, they have forgotten how to write a good story.
To cut a long story short BBB say yes but ASA say no. Also that this controversy has gone on for so long that it should be looked upon by all game developers as an object lesson.
Your last sentence is something I hope for as well. For too long it's been a race to the bottom with some things in video gaming. There are few companies that write big story games, but there's a huge audience for them. With such big stories, devs need to pay attention to what they say in them. Consistency in the story as well as in its presentation is a must. Diverge from both and fans will not be happy and aren't so eager to remain silent anymore.
What Bioware has done has repercussions. I got burned by a lot of games throughout the past year (I mean 2011 and 2012) and even before that. Games in some sequels were bad or released broken. Not all could be fixed. One was incredibly forgettable. ME3 drove the final nail in the coffin. Pre-ordering any game is out for me. I have also been more resistent to gaming reviews and always wanted to see gameplay before buying some games. Now, neither is sufficient to sway me-in fact, they are meaningless unless the reviewers are unofficial, unpaid ones and gameplay for story games may well have to include some understanding of how the ending is perceived.
I may find it very hard to buy any game near release day.
I do not think that Bioware is listening though, nor do they give a hoot.
By using false advertising, by preying on those who had Faith in the company - by lying to the Fans; they got their cash already. Thye relied heavily on preorders, and they fed the hype as much as they could. "Take back Earth!" HA! Take whats left of it, you mean. There never was such false advertising as their garbage.
Why else would they say "We are not fixing it!"? They claimed we were too dumb, we did not get it - then they pulled the 'artistic integrity' card. All of these things boil down to one simple fact: they don't care. Bioware does not care. They have max cash in hand for the least effort. We got an unfinished game, non-polished - one that they threw a dime store ending on.
Worse than that is their attitude. Its one thing to kill Shepard. That would be entirely an acceptable outcome should you choose it - just like in 2 if you did the minimal game. I can accept that. But when I do everything right? No matter what I do or how hard I work, I get the same ending. Shepard gets raped, and Joker flies off with his L.I. to ball her out nightly in a tropical paradise. You know how on vacation you don't take your phone? No contact with anyone, just fun in the sun. Well, thats where your best friend is with your woman. Forever. Thanks Bioware. Could you have flipped me off any worse? Is it possible?!
Lastly, we see the game reviewers are in the pockets of the developers. They all touted ME3 as an amazing and incredible story with a win ending. Survey says.... *BUZZZZ* - wrong answer, pal. All of you are going to suffer over these lies and deceit. The industry has forgotten where the money comes from. It has forgotten who puts food on their table. Worse, they have forgotten how to write a good story.
I just found an interesting thread on romances and relationships in ME where there's a discussion of a bug that occurs if Ashley isn't a good friend and kept alive.
One of the devs actually (couple months ago) addressed the issue and then explained that the particular things the bug causes could not be patched out, but hopefully would be addressed in some DLC, maybe the EC.
I mention this because there are other bugged conversations that apparently never got fixed, but at least in that one discussion a dev (Dusty) did at least discuss an issue. It is an example of what could have and should have been done here.
They can't unring a bell, as the above picture and caption show. For me it had this cascading effect. The star kid was stupid, so the real kid was stupid. His logic was upsetting and horrible, so I began to question other things and find other things. The choices the crucible caused were stupid and horrific so I then looked more closely at the crucible and its existence and it became more annoying. I'd always found it odd that they'd just run off to make it in the first place, but it became the very large elephant in the room. It's like eating food you like and getting sick on it. After you get sick it's really hard to eat that food again.
I can't un-see what I've seen. I can only hope they make the EC amazing. It needs to be.
Maybe all those top brass officers at Shep's hearing who proved to be so useless at their jobs were responsible and taking them out left Hackett in overall charge of the Alliance military. If only Shep had done that in ME2 Hackett could have rebuilt the fleet and bulked it up despite the ratio the coucil imposed on all council species. Oh well.
3D has a point, which I have argued against. But, in WWII (srry, have to bring it in again) Hitler was able to get around treaties by first making "pocket cruisers" and emergency response teams. Once those were in place, he just ignored the treaties and everyone else pretty much tried political pressure...not much use as he was bent on war.
Still say it's understandable that the Alliance wouldn't want to push their luck by mass producing war vessels, even to their legal limit. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]
This is comparing apples to microwaves. Hitler had limits that were not enforced, imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Germany had been an aggressor in WWI. The Alliance has not been an aggressor and was a defender in ME1.
Actually, the Alliance had been in a First Contact war with the Turians, initiated by the Alliance because the Turians chased off the Humans trying to repair a Mass Relay (anything goes wrong..boom). Alliance was a defender in the Sovereign incident, 30 years later, give or take.
I do not see WWII or WWI as irrelevant, as the Geth were a significant fight, causing losses on all sides (see Shep interview in ME2).
If you prefer a smaller conflict, how about the 1812 war (losses on the American side were pretty bad), or the Crimean War (started over conflict between Otto-turks and Russia, pulling in a lot of others) or perhaps the French and Indian war (aka the Seven Years War)? In all cases, it took time to rebuild. Modern weapons equate modern rebuilding techniques, but the time ratio stays the same. If you needed "Old Ironsides," it took a while to build; same thing for the "Monitor" in the US Civil War. Weapons of war take time to build...even when you have sufficient backing.
You're right 3D, I'm helping beat a dead horse, but the experience has not been negative for me. I hope it has been similarily engaging for you[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]
Bioware my "listen" but it seems they have become vastly disconnected with their fanbase across multiple titles. Whether it was DA2's cheap recycled use of levels, the current issues with ME3 and based on last months 400,000+ user subscription cancelations of the Star Wars game... would have to say there's a fair level of player discontent there as well, enough for EA to seriously consider Free to play instead.
And i do have to agree... while there is a such thing as artistic integrity, as an artist, this was a cheap way for them to try and say that this is what they planned all along. And yet, at the same time pretty much call the entire fanbase idiots for not agreeing or understanding their sudden new spin on the entire series.
You don't spend 2 whole series, plus the majority of the 3rd building up to some major confrontation with this bad ass race known as the Reapers, ultimately planning to put the smack down on Harbinger in the end, only to get whiplash when you're hurled in an entirely different direction and introduced to the supposed "master-mind" behind it all. A character that ultimately holds no depth or purpose but to leave you going "what the $(%* is going on?"
By the end of 2... it was Harbinger they ultimately wrote as the bad guy of bad guys. The game should have ended with him/her/it. Shepard still could have died/lived, and a whole heck of a lot would've made much more sense.
Sorry Bioware... from one artist to another... your artistic integrity card was BS cover to not have to think up a true reason why you so badly botched a quality product. As they say.... no matter how much to try to polish crap... it's still crap.
Take responsibility, admit to the poor choices made in the final hours. Too much now corporations are the true self-empowered and self-entitled ones that they think themselves above all things. it's the ones that truly stick to themselves and their roots, who haven't forgotten where they came from that build the most respect and keep it.
If Bioware is really listening I will just leave this here for now because I don't have the motivation or the past midnight OCD to expand everything but feel I figured some things out for myself
I don't know if they realize we mean their well. They are so confident and so smug, they placed this idea that we're the bad arogant guys that don't understand. What I, myself, don't understand is how could they give in like that. I'm not rady to give up on them yet, although they obviously gave up on us. Their "bah" kind of ignorance always make me think they lost control, and "someone else" has already assumed it. I don't care of their denial, I care about Bioware as an artistic team, not as a company, and I care about Dragon Age and Mass Effect. It made me even sadder when they distrust us as a fan base and only react to compliments and flattering commentaries. It really gets worst the longer you think about it.
True listening involves so much more. If true care went into fans of any of their titles, they would not only actively "listen" but also have active feedback and interaction. The ultimately is the only real means of showing you really care.
Too often it's usually just a poll here or there or a post is made requesting constructive feedback, but there is no feedback in return with their own views on a particular topic. I'd be interesting to see them being more interactive in forums, leaving more comments or highlighting good points in topics or asking for more clarification or going further indepth.
It'd certainly help go a long way and provide more constructive and rich discussion rather than having people go stir crazy with speculation and baited breath waiting to either be disappointed further or satisfied.
True this means those who would be more active, like the moderators, might come a little more face to face with some flamers, but so long as people can display their dissatisfaction without bringing personal attacks or going against terms of use policies... they still have a right to their opinions and if they're not laid out in a constructive manner... then simply let them rant, most are likely to ignore them anyway. it's the ones that can be constructive that could better a product.
I recently watched “The Indoctrination Theory – A Documentary.” This hour and twenty four minute long explanation of Indoctrination theory, in my opinion, has some validity. I’m not saying I agree with all of his evidence or even all of his logic, but I think he is onto something.
I recommending watching it, it provides some possibilities for the upcoming DLC.
(2 minutes 15 seconds – Starts the Explanation of the “Indoctrination Theory”) (1 hour 19 mintues – Discusses some theories behind DLC)
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
