229 réponses à ce sujet

[furryrage59]

You say that like they won't make an absolute fortune from new sales from people put off and people buying to fix their crappy ending.

[Rrezz]

there's no reason to change the ending, its fine the way it is. just because a couple of dense high schoolers don't like it doesn't mean it has to change

[DangerousPuddy]

Based on my experience in the world:

They will wait this out and
nothing will happen. They will lose customers and bring in new ones
with their next generation of games and marketing; thus abandoning their
previous identity as Bioware - the RPG company - similar to many other
companies.

Life goes on.

This battle for ME3's ending is
as much a battle for the game as it is for a loyal player base having
trouble letting go of this company they grew to love, myself included.

[eternalnightmare13]

Bethesda made Broken Steel, money wasn't an issue. They don't even have the backing of a big corp like EA.

[furryrage59]

Rrezz wrote...

there's no reason to change the ending, its fine the way it is. just because a couple of dense high schoolers don't like it doesn't mean it has to change

Incredible level of ignorance in this post, well done.

[furryrage59]

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

Bethesda made Broken Steel, money wasn't an issue. They don't even have the backing of a big corp like EA.

That's something i don't understand.

EA is a multi million/billion? dollar corporation but the restrictions and budgets they impose seem to actually be reducing the quality of the games that are being made since BW merged with them? (not attacking them, genuine curiousity)

How does that even work?

[DangerousPuddy]

furryrage59 wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

Bethesda made Broken Steel, money wasn't an issue. They don't even have the backing of a big corp like EA.

That's something i don't understand.

EA is a multi million/billion? dollar corporation but the restrictions and budgets they impose seem to actually be reducing the quality of the games that are being made since BW merged with them? (not attacking them, genuine curiousity)

How does that even work?

Putting restrictions forces devs to work harder either producing a good or adequate game. In the case of Bioware the quality is sliding because it isn't a typical shooter or arcade game. Also, cutting corners and marketing hard / creating hype will get the sales they need and with a limited budget (thus saving more money).

It's not about innovation in business, its about money. And any company that has an asset in innovation finds a way to exploit it for financial means, beyond what should be "fair".

See: Apple.

[cerberus1701]

Rrezz wrote...

there's no reason to change the ending, its fine the way it is. just because a couple of dense high schoolers don't like it doesn't mean it has to change

I hate to tell you this, but people that run the full range between actively hate the endings to the point of lobbying against them to get them changed to those just profoundly confused, disappointed, but accepting, "that they are what they are." constitute the vast majority of this board.

You're in the minority.

[Tazzmission]

spiros9110 wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

its not to much

if anything they can use something that was put into that final hours thing they just released

all they would have to do really is just polish it because i really dont think they threw out all ideas

because think


they would already have diolauge recorded ( so they wont need the cast back)


they probably shelfed alot of things

It's not too much?  The fact that they were lazy with Tali's photo, ME2 crew, and other issues doesn't really give me much hope that they will put a great amount of effort into this.  Plus, what about all the ME2 fans that want a more meaningful development for their relationships, will that be sidelined as well?  Probably.   I've been defending Bioware for the longest time, but I'm fed up with all this bull**** lately and I even like the ending... but if you've read the "Lies Bioware has fed up thread", that basically sums up why I can't defend them anymore. 

ever stop to think fans demanded seeing talis face should be optional?

because alot of people said that on this very community

bioware did NOT lie they gave the fans they wanted and so what they used a stock photo

can you honestly tell me people wouldnt complain regardless if they made talis face up?

despite the paranoia of the devs lying the fans feedback does in fact get looked at

the fact of talis face being a romance option is evidence of it


you call them lazy mainly because you dont want to take responsibility and admit that yes you as a fan dont know what you want

its allready proven because no one is being specific enough as to what they want for an ending

all they ever say is the last 20 minute sucks period without going into detail as to why they think it sucks.

imo those bashing the endings do deserve every ounce of critisizim because you are not giving the devs anything to work on 

Modifié par Tazzmission, 20 mars 2012 - 09:55 .

[CBKeffer]

Rrezz wrote...

there's no reason to change the ending, its fine the way it is. just because a couple of dense high schoolers don't like it doesn't mean it has to change

Um, you are aware that in every poll posted thus far (not just on here, but FB and other media outlets) the stats have shown more like 96-98% are dissatisfied with the endings, right? No matter how you slice it, that's more than just "a couple of dense high schoolers".

[starscreamerx31]

They better or they wont have my buisness

[Salis777]

furryrage59 wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

Bethesda made Broken Steel, money wasn't an issue. They don't even have the backing of a big corp like EA.

That's something i don't understand.

EA is a multi million/billion? dollar corporation but the restrictions and budgets they impose seem to actually be reducing the quality of the games that are being made since BW merged with them? (not attacking them, genuine curiousity)

How does that even work?

Because its a trade off between investment and return, usually referred to as ROI (Return on Investment).  To take it to an extreme its just a scale of how much money you put into development and how much you can sell on release.  Into that go design and development costs, production costs, advertising etc.  Frankly, and sometimes sadly, its not worth spending another $10m on development when you can just release it and sell 100,000 less units.

With gaming and preordering you get an even more complicated situation because they already know they're going to sell x amount, so they can be even more mercenary about releases.  Plus if you go over schedule, you're pushing other content (DLC/games) further down the production timetable and causing issues with reported revenues, etc etc.

Obviously this one didn't quite go to plan:pinched:

[eternalnightmare13]

furryrage59 wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

Bethesda made Broken Steel, money wasn't an issue. They don't even have the backing of a big corp like EA.

That's something i don't understand.

EA is a multi million/billion? dollar corporation but the restrictions and budgets they impose seem to actually be reducing the quality of the games that are being made since BW merged with them? (not attacking them, genuine curiousity)

How does that even work?

I think it's on par with major record labels and movie studios - something's successful and brings in big profits they want to repeat that formula over and over until it burns out.  Shooters are vastily more popular and more profitable then a traditional rpg game.  EA probably puts the pressure on them to put out something shooter-esque with less RPG traditional elements in order to get it out the door sooner and with a smaller budget.  Where as Bethesda is still making fairly traditional rpgs like newest Elder Scrolls - which took what 5 years to come out after the last one.

[DashRunner92]

I wasn't aware you knew how much it costs to make DLC. With sales dropping, especially in the UK, changing the ending will likely benefit them than hurt them.

[Getorex]

Altering the endings thus makes them better and hopier: In NO ending does the Normandy run away. In NO ending do the relays EXPLODE. The relays deactivate but don't explode.

There you go.

The red ending as it is has Shepard survive (he/she inhales on the rubble pile).  Just have the Normandy never leave the Earth system and the relays are simply dark/inactive (but possibly repairable?). Hope galor. Except for the death of EDI and the Geth. Nevertheless, simple save for little cost. Not perfect by any means but WAY hopier.

Modifié par Getorex, 20 mars 2012 - 10:00 .

[cerberus1701]

Give me something even close in length to an expansion pack that will properly end the trilogy and I'd drop $40.

And here people may hate doing it. They may never by a Bioware game again after it, but they'll pay it because they love ME and can't bear knowing that it ended with Starbaby giving you 3 non choice choices.

[Getorex]

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

Bethesda made Broken Steel, money wasn't an issue. They don't even have the backing of a big corp like EA.

That's something i don't understand.

EA is a multi million/billion? dollar corporation but the restrictions and budgets they impose seem to actually be reducing the quality of the games that are being made since BW merged with them? (not attacking them, genuine curiousity)

How does that even work?

When anything is turned into a mere commodity (as games become when the developers are absorbed into a big corporation) then quality suffers.  EA turns ALL games for all companies under its umbrella into a mere commodity (which is why it is REALLY bogus to try and call any products that result "art").

I think it's on par with major record labels and movie studios - something's successful and brings in big profits they want to repeat that formula over and over until it burns out.  Shooters are vastily more popular and more profitable then a traditional rpg game.  EA probably puts the pressure on them to put out something shooter-esque with less RPG traditional elements in order to get it out the door sooner and with a smaller budget.  Where as Bethesda is still making fairly traditional rpgs like newest Elder Scrolls - which took what 5 years to come out after the last one.

Modifié par Getorex, 20 mars 2012 - 10:06 .

[Getorex]

slyguy200 wrote...

it is not because of money, it is because of this

long but worth it, (mostly towards the end) it is very well made and convincing.

"Convincing" are a lot of UFO stories too.  Doesn't make them true.  The developer notes demonstrate no indoctrination.

Plus indoctrination is directly contradicted by ME coda.  Shepard is immune.

Anything that goes otherwise is an attempt at retcon.

[cerberus1701]

Getorex wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

it is not because of money, it is because of this

long but worth it, (mostly towards the end) it is very well made and convincing.

"Convincing" are a lot of UFO stories too.  Doesn't make them true.  The developer notes demonstrate no indoctrination.

Plus indoctrination is directly contradicted by ME coda.  Shepard is immune.

Anything that goes otherwise is an attempt at retcon.

Shepard and Tali being able to get together physically was once directly contradicted by ME coda, too.

Just...pointing that out.

[CerberusSoldier]

Op EA has the money to fix the ending

[Getorex]

cerberus1701 wrote...

Getorex wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

it is not because of money, it is because of this

long but worth it, (mostly towards the end) it is very well made and convincing.

"Convincing" are a lot of UFO stories too.  Doesn't make them true.  The developer notes demonstrate no indoctrination.

Plus indoctrination is directly contradicted by ME coda.  Shepard is immune.

Anything that goes otherwise is an attempt at retcon.

Shepard and Tali being able to get together physically was once directly contradicted by ME coda, too.

Just...pointing that out.

I WILL give you this.  IF Bioware decided that they would use the idea of indoctrination as an escape here and thus make a DLC that takes us to real endings (and one of them MUST give me some hopey idea that Shep survived and can get with his LI and crew...not explicitly but an INDICATION) then I say they should run with it.  It WOULD allow them to keep the ending as is and simply stick in a DLC that goes a step beyond.

[tdb023]

Here's the thing. Right now, a lot of fans are really upset about how the game turned out. Yes, the game itself is absolutely stunning, but the ending is the last thing you see in the game. It leaves a bad taste in people's mouths because of all the work you put into it. Bioware doesn't want to be envisioned by fans as being "unfaithful" to the fans, so they will fix it. And who knows, maybe they already have voices recored.

[CerberusSoldier]

Getorex wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

Bethesda made Broken Steel, money wasn't an issue. They don't even have the backing of a big corp like EA.

That's something i don't understand.

EA is a multi million/billion? dollar corporation but the restrictions and budgets they impose seem to actually be reducing the quality of the games that are being made since BW merged with them? (not attacking them, genuine curiousity)

How does that even work?

When anything is turned into a mere commodity (as games become when the developers are absorbed into a big corporation) then quality suffers.  EA turns ALL games for all companies under its umbrella into a mere commodity (which is why it is REALLY bogus to try and call any products that result "art").

I think it's on par with major record labels and movie studios - something's successful and brings in big profits they want to repeat that formula over and over until it burns out.  Shooters are vastily more popular and more profitable then a traditional rpg game.  EA probably puts the pressure on them to put out something shooter-esque with less RPG traditional elements in order to get it out the door sooner and with a smaller budget.  Where as Bethesda is still making fairly traditional rpgs like newest Elder Scrolls - which took what 5 years to come out after the last one.

   




EA is not to blame for this mess with ME 3 . that falls on the developer Bioware .

[frag971]

Getorex wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

it is not because of money, it is because of this

long but worth it, (mostly towards the end) it is very well made and convincing.

"Convincing" are a lot of UFO stories too.  Doesn't make them true.  The developer notes demonstrate no indoctrination.

Plus indoctrination is directly contradicted by ME coda.  Shepard is immune.

Anything that goes otherwise is an attempt at retcon.

I'd rather have it retconned as indoctrination.