238 réponses à ce sujet

[Cpl_Facehugger]

incinerator950 wrote...

I recall Fallout 3's ending being exactly the same with the DLC, but allowing you to continue on regardless of your choice. From a standpoint, Fallout 3's ending isn't bad, people wanted to continue. Something Fallout New Vegas didn't follow through with.

You recall incorrectly. Fallout 3 allowed you to send in your helpfully radiation immune supermutant/robot/ghoul mansevant.

[LordSlavius]

To be fair loads of people have cancelled their TOR subscriptions not because they're protesting about ME3, but because it's a pretty crap game.

[Kenthen]

Nelzeben wrote...

The problem is that radiation poisoning can be hand-waved away pretty easily. A random space god appearance and Mass Relays blowing up is going to be much harder to fix/explain/improve.

Besides, I think the main complaint with Fallout 3 was that you couldn't keep playing once you'd finished the main campaign. I could be wrong about that, however.

Probably, but so what? Big picture, based on initial press reactions etc is that people initially tried to pretend that endings to games shouldn't change for whatever stupid reasons, because it's art, because of the weather, because it's just something you don't do, etc.
Broken Steel, for example, has been used mainly to refute that.

Modifié par Kenthen, 16 mars 2012 - 08:05 .

[MissOuJ]

In all fairness, Bethesda released that DLC because they didn't have a post-campaign save which made it impossible to play after the final plot mission. Any side quests you hadn't completed? Too bad. Wanna play future DLC with your first character? Nope, sorry.

The more fitting comparison would be the Prince of Persia: Epilogue, but it's not half as famous.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 16 mars 2012 - 08:05 .

[naughty99]

People weren't upset at all about the way the FO3 ending was written.

They were upset that they couldn't continue playing the game after completing the main quest. Broken Steel fixed that. It didn't change the writing of the ending.

[Spitfiremk87]

LordSlavius wrote...

To be fair loads of people have cancelled their TOR subscriptions not because they're protesting about ME3, but because it's a pretty crap game.

Yeah I canceled mine about a month before ME3 came out. It was good for about a week. Its just too similar to WoW.

[Kenthen]

naughty99 wrote...

People weren't upset at all about the way the FO3 ending was written.

They were upset that they couldn't continue playing the game after completing the main quest. Broken Steel fixed that. It didn't change the writing of the ending.

You remember incorrectly. It wasn't a big ****storm, don't get me wrong, but I know for a fact people instantly called Bethesda out on how dumb the whole martyr thing was, for no other reason than because it was dumb.

Modifié par Kenthen, 16 mars 2012 - 08:07 .

[Da Don Giovanni]

Kenthen wrote...

Nelzeben wrote...

The problem is that radiation poisoning can be hand-waved away pretty easily. A random space god appearance and Mass Relays blowing up is going to be much harder to fix/explain/improve.

Besides, I think the main complaint with Fallout 3 was that you couldn't keep playing once you'd finished the main campaign. I could be wrong about that, however.

Probably, but so what? Big picture, based on initial press reactions etc is that people initially tried to pretend that endings to games shouldn't change for whatever stupid reasons, because it's art, because of the weather, because it's just something you don't do, etc.
Broken Steel, for example, has been used mainly to refute that.

This ^

[BigBubbaBacon]

 I never played Broken Steel, but I did play Fallout 3.

What's with the hate for that ending? It never bothered me.

[Marta Rio II]

naughty99 wrote...

People weren't upset at all about the way the FO3 ending was written.

They were upset that they couldn't continue playing the game after completing the main quest. Broken Steel fixed that. It didn't change the writing of the ending.

I was upset about the writing of the FO3 ending, as it contained a major plot hole.  Other people were too.  Many were upset about the writing and the fact that they couldn't keep playing.

And it absolutely changed the writing of the ending.  Rather than having to sacrifice yourself, you could send one of your radiation-immune squadmates into the radiation-filled chamber. 

Modifié par Marta Rio II, 16 mars 2012 - 08:09 .

[Spitfiremk87]

BigBubbaBacon wrote...

 I never played Broken Steel, but I did play Fallout 3.

What's with the hate for that ending? It never bothered me.

Yeah I didn't really have a problem with the ending either. Its because it fit into context with the rest of the game and didn't leave big gaping plot holes exposed.

However, it was nice to continute playing and I did purchase Broken Steel.

[Almostfaceman]

Yes, for the people comparing a video game to the Mona Lisa, there is precedent for changing the ending. And yes, the ending was changed, the protagonist doesn't die.

[DraCZeQQ]

AlexXIV wrote...

DraCZeQQ wrote...

Da Don Giovanni wrote...

Fallout 3, one of the greatest RPG's this generation, 

Stopped reading right there ... 

I liked FO3 alot. Ok I don't think it is the greatest but I really can believe people think so. It had an atmosphere that many other RPGs lack. When you're running through the ruins of Washington with the theme song and everything is dead or mad or hiding. FONV was maybe technically better, but it didn't have this Fallout feeling like FO3 imo.

[Vaktathi]

incinerator950 wrote...

I recall Fallout 3's ending being exactly the same with the DLC, but allowing you to continue on regardless of your choice. From a standpoint, Fallout 3's ending isn't bad, people wanted to continue. Something Fallout New Vegas didn't follow through with.

The "end" of the core campaign is the same, but the DLC basically takes it from "you die from radiation poisoning GAME OVER" to "you fall over and black out from what is percieved to be fatal radiation poisoning and wake up 2 weeks later in a hospital and continue play" and then adds on to the story from there.


It sets a decent precedent here for a change in the ending.

Modifié par Vaktathi, 16 mars 2012 - 08:15 .

[Cookiegobbler]

Da Don Giovanni wrote...

Fallout 3, a phenomenal RPG of it's time (2008), did not have a Satisfactory ending. (nowhere near as bad as ME3, but in the same ball park) 

Serious backlash ensued about the ending and Bethesda (Skyrim!) released DLC entitled, "Broken Steel" (not based entirely on the community backlash, but in part, and in part cause Bethesda wanted to and knew they could change the ending of their game and make it great and make money and make the gamer happy. )

This allowed players to continue the game after the end (where the player had died) and the DLC was hailed as some of the best ever produced and went on to sell millions of downloads.


Anyway, if Stanley Woo or Christ Priestly reads this and can pass this up to Casey Hudson or Mike Gamble or whoever @ EA, tell them to get a copy of Fallout 3, beat it, then download Broken Steel and apply something like that to ME3.


Now most of the "Retake ME3" movement will be willing to buy this "Broken Steel" esque DLC, but you need to start producing it ASAP.

I was playing SWTOR up until the ME3 ending, I and thousands of others are cancelling/cancelled our subs due to that, so your losing 10s of thousands of dollars there, and God knows how many thousands more have traded ME3 in to gamestop already and I know that hurts the pocketbook and your PR.


Real Simple BioWare, produce a "Broken Steel" type DLC that allows us to play, say... "Post-Harbinger" in a different way, and we pay you $10 for it.

You get EA more money, and you get your stellar developer reputation back. Win/Win

So explain to me how this will work? Since at the end of ME3 all the relays are destroyed...

[Scott Sion]

Ruari wrote...
                                                                                                                                                          gaping wound
I wouldn't say they get their reputation back...it's just the first step in getting it back. A band-aid on the ^ cut.

I'm only joking. Is the ending terrible? God yes, it's no where near Bioware quality. Bioware's intention wasn't to ****** off the fans with a bad ending however, so there rep shouldn't be damaged. I don't know what their intention was with the ending, but I doubt it was "Lets take a dump on the ending and laugh at the fan back lash.". 

There rep will be damaged  if they decide to write it off, but I don't think Bioware is the kind of company that gives their fans the finger and says deal with it. 

Modifié par plnero, 16 mars 2012 - 08:15 .

[xeNNN]

 this this this my god this.

[Sashimi_taco]

Cpl_Facehugger wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

I recall Fallout 3's ending being exactly the same with the DLC, but allowing you to continue on regardless of your choice. From a standpoint, Fallout 3's ending isn't bad, people wanted to continue. Something Fallout New Vegas didn't follow through with.

You recall incorrectly. Fallout 3 allowed you to send in your helpfully radiation immune supermutant/robot/ghoul mansevant.

That was after the DLC. :|

[Cuddlezarro]

DraCZeQQ wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

DraCZeQQ wrote...

Da Don Giovanni wrote...

Fallout 3, one of the greatest RPG's this generation, 

Stopped reading right there ... 

I liked FO3 alot. Ok I don't think it is the greatest but I really can believe people think so. It had an atmosphere that many other RPGs lack. When you're running through the ruins of Washington with the theme song and everything is dead or mad or hiding. FONV was maybe technically better, but it didn't have this Fallout feeling like FO3 imo.

this

New Vegas was pretty much a direct sequel(story wise) to the first 2 fallout games and felt like it as well

[Sashimi_taco]

plnero wrote...

Ruari wrote...
                                                                                                                                                          gaping wound
I wouldn't say they get their reputation back...it's just the first step in getting it back. A band-aid on the ^ cut.

I'm only joking. Is the ending terrible? God yes, it's no where near Bioware quality. Bioware's intention wasn't to ****** off the fans with a bad ending however, so there rep shouldn't be damaged. I don't know what their intention was with the ending, but I doubt it was "Lets take a dump on the ending and laugh at the fan back lash.". 

There rep will be damaged  if they decide to write it off, but I don't think Bioware is the kind of company that gives their fans the finger and says deal with it. 

LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE!

[JamesYHT]

that's the way a company should deal with its customers....it's no about "art", it's sample business. ur customers don't like ur product, too bad, u are done.

[sircaren]

incinerator950 wrote...

I recall Fallout 3's ending being exactly the same with the DLC, but allowing you to continue on regardless of your choice. From a standpoint, Fallout 3's ending isn't bad, people wanted to continue. Something Fallout New Vegas didn't follow through with.

It was like this.  You could have a companion with you who was immune to radiation at the end.  In the final scene of Fallout you had to sacrafice yourself and die to radiation or else the end credits called you a coward
(there was another human there you could bully into it). 

Without the expansion, said companion refused to step in for you (you know, because it wouldn't have affected him.  It was your destiny he said when asked).  With the expansion he grudgingly agreed to so you didn't have to die needlessly to radiation 10 feet away from someone who is immune to it who refused to push a button on a console for you.

[sircaren]

Cuddlezarro wrote...

DraCZeQQ wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

DraCZeQQ wrote...

Da Don Giovanni wrote...

Fallout 3, one of the greatest RPG's this generation, 

Stopped reading right there ... 

I liked FO3 alot. Ok I don't think it is the greatest but I really can believe people think so. It had an atmosphere that many other RPGs lack. When you're running through the ruins of Washington with the theme song and everything is dead or mad or hiding. FONV was maybe technically better, but it didn't have this Fallout feeling like FO3 imo.

this

New Vegas was pretty much a direct sequel(story wise) to the first 2 fallout games and felt like it as well

Meh, FONV didn't feel nearly as epic.  Why should I care if some dude's casino fails or not? It was a fun game, but not nearly as 'cool' imo.

Even if mechanically it was an improvement, which it was imo.

[panamakira]

If it's been done before I don't see why Bioware can't do it. Plus it will be benefit them from fixing all the backlash they have right now with those endings whether they release free DLC or not.

[nomoredruggs]

Da Don Giovanni wrote...

LTKerr wrote...

Willing to buy? ME3 costs over 60€ for god's sake! If there's any new ending (hope so), it has to be a free DLC.

Now, Casey Hudson as mean as he was to us about the ending, doesn't work for free. Neither does Mike Gamble or the other engineers and developers, so they produce Broken Steel for ME3, they deserve about $10 if it's $15 i wouldn't buy it.

That's why I'd be willing to  pay for it too, thought I understand LTKerr's view, people don't work for free...And it wouldn't have to retcon or change the ending, it could just as well be ALTERNATIVE ending dlc.

In other words yes,I support alternative endings dlc!