CavScout wrote...
Why do people consider an EXPANSION pack that continue game-play BEYOND the original game a "ending change"?
Dragoonlordz wrote...
Some people like to jump in front of cars, doesn't mean I will.
Different people want and do different things. Such is life.
Just because x did something does not mean y has to.
Taboo-XX wrote...
RKB28 wrote...
Screw 10 dollars, I would gladly pay 30 for a dlc that fixes that mess of and ending.Atleast that way I could invest in the novels and comic books of Shepard´s timeline(and before) without thinking "Well, this is all gonna end in a rather crappy way...".
Panicomatic wrote...
Dragoonlordz wrote...
Some people like to jump in front of cars, doesn't mean I will.
Different people want and do different things. Such is life.
Just because x did something does not mean y has to.
This is vague and pointless.
clos wrote...
If we have to pay for the ending to the game I give up on Bioware games forever. We shouldn't have to pay for an ending and I wouldn't plus they lose me as a customer for life.
Dessalines wrote...
Actually, I enjoyed the sacrifice for Fallout 3. I thought it was natural. I did not the reason they change the ending was due to fan outrage until this came up.
I think a better precendent is in one of Bioware's own games, Dragon Age. In Dragon Age, if you let your Warden die, they showed your casket, they stated what happenned tol all your companions. Yes, Virginia, they provided closure to your companion even if you died, and they even told you about the rest of the country too.
Nigawatts wrote...
Dessalines wrote...
Actually, I enjoyed the sacrifice for Fallout 3. I thought it was natural. I did not the reason they change the ending was due to fan outrage until this came up.
I think a better precendent is in one of Bioware's own games, Dragon Age. In Dragon Age, if you let your Warden die, they showed your casket, they stated what happenned tol all your companions. Yes, Virginia, they provided closure to your companion even if you died, and they even told you about the rest of the country too.
Again, it wasn't so much outrage that pushed them to do this. Bethesda games are sorta immune to end game hatred since their main quests are usually kinda ****ty to begin with (Alduin was pretty good though). They did it because they themselves didn't care for it to end that way. Probably because the original Fallout 3 ending was mostly staged that way to be similar to Fallout 1 and 2, while Bethesda style doesn't really let the game end after the main quest is complete.
They were following their own thing, not the narrative structure established by previous installments.
Unit-Alpha wrote...
Bethesda > Bioware
That's why there's a problem.
Besides, Todd Howard is one of the gaming greats. Easily alongside Ken Levine.
Casey Hudson's got a ways to go.
Da Don Giovanni wrote...
Aesieru wrote...
Anyway, Skyrim was not the best in all honesty.
Your joking... Right?
Modifié par CodyMelch, 29 mars 2012 - 03:24 .
marstinson wrote...
A couple of points: Todd Howard is NOT the head of Bethesda Softworks. He's the producer/executive producer of Fallout 3 and TES III, IV, and V and, I think, is Bethesda's director of games or some such. Vlatko Andonov is the President of the company. Granted, most people think of Todd as being Bethesda, but he's really not.
The Elder Scrolls game have always been an open-world concept where you were able to continue playing beyond the completion of the major quest line. I think the fan backlash on Fallout 3's ending was mainly due to fan expectation that Bethesda would continue that. Whether that expectation was reasonable or not is open to debate (and the debate still goes on to some degree), but Fallout: New Vegas held firm that there would be no continued gameplay after completing the main quest line. Five DLCs later, there is still no gameplay after the final battle.
Unit-Alpha wrote...
Michael177 wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
Bethesda cares about their fans.
/looks at the fact that skyrim was nearly unplayable on ps3 for like 4 months
Definetly!... wait
They tried fixes each patch, but the PS3's hardware is a pain to work on for Bethesda, which focuses on 360 hardware.
CavScout wrote...
Why do people consider an EXPANSION pack that continue game-play BEYOND the original game a "ending change"?
gooberfish311 wrote...
CavScout wrote...
Why do people consider an EXPANSION pack that continue game-play BEYOND the original game a "ending change"?
Because it changed the ending. Of course, the change was by way of a retcon instead of a rewrite, but the end result was the same.
Most of the "Retake ME3" movement will be willing to buy a "Broken Steel" esque DLC
aimlessgun wrote...
Damn Bethesda is awesome. Admitting mistakes is something that I truly admire.
Catroi wrote...
open world games are easy to script, that's the whole difference
Retour en haut
