2730 réponses à ce sujet

[clonedoriginzero]

All Dead wrote...

Cirrusstrafe wrote...
The entire War Assets thing was a huge mistake.  It caused my choices to be goverend by math, not by story outcome.

This even gets lampshaded in in-game dialogue. A couple times some lines about "reducing the war/casualties to arithmetic" are spoken by Shep, and I think Garrus.

no. it made total sense in a story context. what are you talking about? if you were making choices based on war asset points than you were playing the game wrong and metagaming. you only have yourself to blame for that.

the reducing war/casualties to arithmetic line made total sense. in a war of this scale, thats how you'd have to handle alot of things.

"do i send in this platoon that i know will be wiped out to save 2 others?" things like that happen. its all about the hard choices and having to detatch yourself to make the smart call.

[Boceephus]

Well there goes my hope that Bioware were secret geniuses planning some amazing ending-DLC once we got all worked up about our ruined franchise.

When I read "lots of debate/speculation for everyone" all I can picture is Kramer doing his moviephone voice going "why don't you just IMAGINE the name of the ending you want to see".

[alienman]

Yeah, seems there was a bit too much focus on war assets. I mean, why do low assets turn the destroy option shockwave to a destruction one. How can some more ships change the power of that shockwave??

[KillerJudgement]

Abisco wrote...

You don't need to know the answers to the mass effect universe. So we intentionally left those out"

I know it's most likely been discussed earlier in this thread, but I havent been on for 3 days, lol.

This pisses me off... The end of the series, the ONLY time we can learn the answers, but... we don't need to know them?

[Cirrusstrafe]

All Dead wrote...

Meh, I thought it worked well as in-game dialogue, but also was sly reference to the meta-game device. Maybe I'm looking too much into it; I only played the game once--memory is hazy. I personally didn't do things simply for the points and didn't think the war assets device was bad (except for when it ultimately became pointless).

By bad I mean... it seems to me the mechanic goverened too much of their story design.  Rather than having dynamic endings and a dynamic end sequence, they just had to backpedal and fill in any deaths/gaps to ensure everybody had a fair shot at choosing all the colors.

To prevent people from not having enough assets to access all the endings they had to replace BIG DECISIONS like killing/saving the council in 1, or genociding the Rachni in 1, or anyone that died in 2, with replacement NPCs.

You never had to really think long and hard about a decision in 3 because it carried no weight in the end.  You could always "fix it" or "shore up your assets" by scanning for artifacts or, ultimately, promoting multiplayer dudes over.  Did you lose 1k assets because you chose the Geth over the Quarians?  Meh, no long standing consequences there.  Geth fleet just doesn't report in, Destroy ending carries a little less gravity because you chose to annihilate them eariler rather than later, and you can always just import enough dudes to where it totally doesn't matter overall anyways.  

The core flaw in covering all bases that way is that there's zero replayability because after your first playthrough the illusion of the ending giving a crap about what you did is shattered.  Why play a renegade shep after a paragon shep when you can just imagine how it played out; that's what they wanted you to do after the cinematic anyways.

Sure, it allowed everyone to still get all the endings, which is fair and nice and all, but the problem was that there War Assets goverend what major 3 endings you got, and not JUST that you could get to the Crucible and that it worked correctly, and then your prior actions drove the ending you got which is how it SHOULD HAVE BEEN.  The fairness in ability to acquire War Assets for the endings just caused everything, again, to be diluted into a mishmash of math and minmaxing/metagaming.

But, maybe that's the beauty of it.  In a surreal sense, that means we, as Shepard, have in fact boiled all these lives and choices down to a statistical advantage, regardless of the long standing outcome.

Modifié par Cirrusstrafe, 16 mars 2012 - 10:22 .

[Moirai]

Next time Bioware want me to buy one of their products I will 'imagine' buying it and 'speculate' on what it would be like to own it.

Bioware, on the other hand, can 'speculate' on how much money they would have made if they hadn't upset so many of their loyal customers with a badly thought out product.

In that situation, I'm quite sure Mr Hudson will quickly become disenfranchised with the whole notion that speculation is good.

Which it isn't.

What is good is making sure customers are happy. Which Bioware have clearly failed to do in this instance.

[Cirrusstrafe]

thomash81 wrote...

Yeah, seems there was a bit too much focus on war assets. I mean, why do low assets turn the destroy option shockwave to a destruction one. How can some more ships change the power of that shockwave??

Answer: War Assets came in all shapes, sizes, and utilities.  With too few assets it is implied the Crucible had too few resources allocated to it (raw, manpower, tech, ideas, etc) and so it was built as poorly as an Ikea desk.  Thus, it backfires, and kills everything.

[Aloren]

No matter what they plan, why would they mention it in a app they knew would release a week after launch ? wouldn't make sense (especially if they created a controversial ending on purpose) to reveal anything of importance in there.
This doesn't change anything imo.

[alienman]

Cirrusstrafe wrote...

thomash81 wrote...

Yeah, seems there was a bit too much focus on war assets. I mean, why do low assets turn the destroy option shockwave to a destruction one. How can some more ships change the power of that shockwave??

Answer: War Assets came in all shapes, sizes, and utilities.  With too few assets it is implied the Crucible had too few resources allocated to it (raw, manpower, tech, ideas, etc) and so it was built as poorly as an Ikea desk.  Thus, it backfires, and kills everything.

Hah, yeah, I guess you are right. Pretty logical as well, but still, it would have been better if it was tied in into the story. Like if you fail to rescue a damn important scientist or something. Instead of some random artifact I picked up on some remote planet while being chased by reapers

[Cirrusstrafe]

All Dead wrote...

Cirrusstrafe , I see what you mean. They just ended up formulating a total sum/generic conclusion, instead of it mattering what the war assets were actually composed of, right? Like it just came down to points, not WHO or WHAT the points were representing.

Yes.

[BouncyTEM]

The more I think about it, the more I think war assets was a mistake. So now I have yet another thing on top of my massive rant <signature has a link> to vent about.

Ponder this alongside me; if there was no multiplayer mode for Mass Effect 3, would we see this "War Assets" feature at all?

Or, would we instead have seen something more akin to ME2's ending, where it does checks to see what you did and has things change accordingly?

I'm sort of inclined to believe that MP did change a lot, and not for the better. Just my opinion, though.

[Cirrusstrafe]

BouncyTEM wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I think war assets was a mistake. So now I have yet another thing on top of my massive rant <signature has a link> to vent about.

Ponder this alongside me; if there was no multiplayer mode for Mass Effect 3, would we see this "War Assets" feature at all?

Or, would we instead have seen something more akin to ME2's ending, where it does checks to see what you did and has things change accordingly?

I'm sort of inclined to believe that MP did change a lot, and not for the better. Just my opinion, though.

The MP itself is fantastic; however yes, I kind of agree with the thought process, though it would have been worse without MP.

Consider my previous big post.  If no MP existed, there would be even fewer ways to shore up lost asset potential due to mass murder, genocide, and not giving a crap renegade shepard options.  To be fair to those players, they would have had to do more butt-pulling plot devices and homogenize the assets gained even further.  The lost war assets had to be made up somehow.

Modifié par Cirrusstrafe, 16 mars 2012 - 10:29 .

[Zhuinden]

They're making money through iPad applications from their FAILURE?

This is just... I don't even know the words to describe this. This is the greatest scam ever made. You'd think they made a Bioware Pulse video or so, but no, they ask you 3$ to pay to see how they messed everything up in the end. That's just charming.

[Elanor]

I Think that MP shoudln't affect on single player. Not everyone like playing in MP. I don't like being force to something.

[BouncyTEM]

Or, alternatively, such asset losses could've been a major factor in changing the endings, thus giving paragon and renegade shepards very, *very* different conclusions, as opposed to the very same-y stuff we have now.

You reap what you sew.

[wj_1985]

Hahaha oh wow. I actually bought into the indoctrination theory because I thought it was brilliant and made more sense than the actual ending itself...

Then to see these details that the app releases.. just wow. BioWare has been a straight A's regarding to creating this trilogy, then totally flunk the final exam in the last 10 min... This game feels like a C game to me now, honestly.

And to think the developers actually think the concept of this ending is a great idea.... SMH.

Oh and forget hoping that you can increase revenue stream by releasing more multiplayer DLC... people did not buy this game for its MP content, and to force people to play MP to get better storyline ending is not cool at all.

[Cirrusstrafe]

BouncyTEM wrote...

Or, alternatively, such asset losses could've been a major factor in changing the endings, thus giving paragon and renegade shepards very, *very* different conclusions, as opposed to the very same-y stuff we have now.

You reap what you sew.

Yes, and this is basically one of the biggest issues, if not the single most damning thing about the endings.  The lack of this being the case.

[Tallyen]

Moirai wrote...

Next time Bioware want me to buy one of their products I will 'imagine' buying it and 'speculate' on what it would be like to own it.

Bioware, on the other hand, can 'speculate' on how much money they would have made if they hadn't upset so many of their loyal customers with a badly thought out product.

In that situation, I'm quite sure Mr Hudson will quickly become disenfranchised with the whole notion that speculation is good.

Which it isn't.

What is good is making sure customers are happy. Which Bioware have clearly failed to do in this instance.

LOL! +1 internet for you.

[justlogme]

isig wrote...

Indeed, they acomplished the impossible somehow.. because it takes a special kind of talent to effectively ruin a series as good as this one was..  and they did it in one fell swoop.

Wow, just wow, Bioware.

Weird side thought,but maybe,just maybe Casey and crew decided to commit Biowares economic suicide/ ruin on purpose? Its hard to believe they would be so clueless as to what the games  ending would do after all thier false promises of multiple endings and player actions really mattering.
   Maybe they got pressured and rushed by EA one too many times (ie DA2) and due to contracts the only way they could strike back at EA was to commit Biowares economic suicide. ie ****** off the majority of the fanbase so almost no one would ever buy a Bioware title again.

[Gruzmog]

Cirrusstrafe wrote...

BouncyTEM wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I think war assets was a mistake. So now I have yet another thing on top of my massive rant <signature has a link> to vent about.

Ponder this alongside me; if there was no multiplayer mode for Mass Effect 3, would we see this "War Assets" feature at all?

Or, would we instead have seen something more akin to ME2's ending, where it does checks to see what you did and has things change accordingly?

I'm sort of inclined to believe that MP did change a lot, and not for the better. Just my opinion, though.

The MP itself is fantastic; however yes, I kind of agree with the thought process, though it would have been worse without MP.

Consider my previous big post.  If no MP existed, there would be even fewer ways to shore up lost asset potential due to mass murder, genocide, and not giving a crap renegade shepard options.  To be fair to those players, they would have had to do more butt-pulling plot devices and homogenize the assets gained even further.  The lost war assets had to be made up somehow.

Not really, the game was about choises. why should every character be allowed to score a perfect ending? Aslong as not every renegade option was bad and every paragon option was good for the war assets, it would have been totally fine.

I figured my canon shep would get a decent ending but not the top one because I sacrifcied the council and destroyed the cure in ME2. Turns out it did not matter anyway

[Cirrusstrafe]

wj_1985 wrote...

Oh and forget hoping that you can increase revenue stream by releasing more multiplayer DLC... people did not buy this game for its MP content, and to force people to play MP to get better storyline ending is not cool at all.

Amusingly enough, from reading the multiplayer forums, I've come to the conclusion that they are easily making $10 per person that owns ME3 from booster pack purchases with real money (not spread evenly; if one guy drops $30 on it then it makes up for his two buddies that didn't put money on it sort of thing).

They're actually making a crapton of money off of it already.

[Cirrusstrafe]

Gruzmog wrote...

Not really, the game was about choises. why should every character be allowed to score a perfect ending? Aslong as not every renegade option was bad and every paragon option was good for the war assets, it would have been totally fine.

I figured my canon shep would get a decent ending but not the top one because I sacrifcied the council and destroyed the cure in ME2. Turns out it did not matter anyway

I wasn't defending it, I was explaining BW's thought process.