612 réponses à ce sujet

[Q8999]

Yes this is why an apology/ explanation would not be out of line.

[DuneMuadDib]

firebreather19 wrote...

Still not the same. Like I said, I could probably go and find 20 products you've used or have that promise things they're not delivering. That means you just got sucker punched twenty times throughout the past couple years, but what...this one time you're going to get mad about it? That's my point. 

Some of us complain because we care that much.  Star Wars for me has become a major disappointment, but I just don't care enough about it anymore to voice that opinion.

Mass Effect took a strong hold for me, I rapidly became a passionate fan and player and was eager to eat up as much of the universe as possible, buy all kinda of merchandise and proudly proclaim that I enjoyed the product.  Then there was the Mass Effect 3 ending, and it was disappointing.

Reading the interview quotes makes the ending more embarrassing to me, because it fails to equal the quality of the rest of the product and it's disparate from what we were told it would be.  I can achieve the same three colors by doing every single mission and fetch quest and "i agree with X" discussion in the game, or I can just play a bunch of multiplayer and blow off everything that I don't have to do to progress in singleplayer.  That runs contrary to being told my choices in singleplayer mattered.

[McScroggz24]

whydoyouwanttoknow wrote...

Rulycar wrote...

whydoyouwanttoknow wrote...

The law on false advertising in Australia says that it's false advertising if it makes claims that are untrue, or something like that. I imagine it's the same most places.

Are interviews advertising?
For that matter ...
... Is false advertising subject to criminal or civil code?

Let me ask you this.  Say you go down to your local....... let's say Ford dealership.  The salesperson tells you all these cool features that the car comes with.  You buy it.  You take it home.  It comes with none.  Is it too bad because it wasn't in a physical ad?  Or you hear him on the radio in an interview saying all the cool features that his car comes with.  Is that too bad?

Of course not. Everything they say about their product is advertising it.

The disconnect between this way of thinking, in which you can literally show that a car that was promised to have side airbags clearly does not, and what ME3 has is that there is a difference in the choices you make, as the player you just have to extrapolate it in your mind, which sucks (especially considering the added plotholes, thematic discrepencies, etc).

[xeNNN]

I think personally for me what pushed me to purchase mass effect 3 was 50% experience with previous games and the sheer enjoyment i got out of them, and what the developers and producers and "critics" said, however a lot of what they said didnt even cross over into the games experience though i do agree its an amazing game barely anything they said about the game was actually there.

especially the quote from casey, which stated that you wont get an A B C ending but thats bassically what we got. :/.

[Myrmedus]

firebreather19 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://business.fina...-all-audiences/

“I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are optimal for different people”

That comment killed me the most, for in my opinion it was the most important thing to include in ME3 - and a mechanic that would've given BW breathing room to try a more 'artistic' ending as one of the options - and yet was completely and utterly absent, to my absolute shock.

I don't know about that, I think whatever folks picked on their first playthrough (which seemed, from a lot of talk, to be the initial "what I would do" run) determined what type of person they were...whether they would be willing to risk controlling the reapers, sacrificing the Geth and Edi to destroy them, or believe the uniting of every organic and synthetic life would be the better ending. It was really telling of each individual's personality. 

That's like saying everyone's personality can be categorized into 3 boxes. Besides, I would argue (and obviously like many others) there wasn't a single 'optimal' ending for me, or anything close.

Besides, the outcome of those endings - the visual outcomes - are very much the same.

True, but that's a different conversation, more about Shepard and the Reapers and whether that situation could've ever actually been more than it was. Some argued why not just stick with conventional warfare. Sure, you could, but you also just witnessed it taking multiple fleet's firepower just to take down one Reaper. And not even decimated...barely destroyed. Just enough that it couldn't function, but still enough that it could give Shepard a figurative dying cackle. And you expect them to take on an army of those beings? Nothing aside from a miracle was going to save the galaxy from the Reapers. Or maybe if you got Chris Redfield to punch each Reaper in the face. That guy punches boulders like a pro, I think he might be able to handle it. 

No, my point was more based upon the fact that decisions throughout the entire series and ME3 specifically were meant to shape the paths you took on a journey that was meant to fork out more broadly, and earlier at that, so the endings you arrived at quite a bit varied compared to another person's.

The only conclusive fork in ME3 is at the very end. It is like a trident when it should've been like the branch of a tree, at least based upon their claims.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 22 mars 2012 - 11:48 .

[Hashbeth]

I am very glad to see this thread.
Yes, I understand that BioWare is reaching out to us, and I appreciate that. However, it would do everyone good to realize that much of this mess is due to hype in the first place about the game.

Things, such as the Rachni, still greatly disappoint me in ME3. Their roll is so small, given how important they supposedly were. The institution of War Assets, which we never really saw in battle, seemed to cheat the fans of material we expected. This is Mass Effect. We expect to see how our decisions haunt us. However, when the ending's only real change involves EMS, and EMS can easily pumped up via non-story related multiplayer, it really diminishes the effect that material has on the fans.

I really hope BioWare is listening and has interesting and well-laid plans on the additional content. For one last time, I'm going to extend an armistice and place my hope in the company.

But I hope they will look at these promotions for their game, and understand why so many of us feel betrayed.

[Myrmedus]

McScroggz24 wrote...

whydoyouwanttoknow wrote...

Rulycar wrote...

whydoyouwanttoknow wrote...

The law on false advertising in Australia says that it's false advertising if it makes claims that are untrue, or something like that. I imagine it's the same most places.

Are interviews advertising?
For that matter ...
... Is false advertising subject to criminal or civil code?

Let me ask you this.  Say you go down to your local....... let's say Ford dealership.  The salesperson tells you all these cool features that the car comes with.  You buy it.  You take it home.  It comes with none.  Is it too bad because it wasn't in a physical ad?  Or you hear him on the radio in an interview saying all the cool features that his car comes with.  Is that too bad?

Of course not. Everything they say about their product is advertising it.

The disconnect between this way of thinking, in which you can literally show that a car that was promised to have side airbags clearly does not, and what ME3 has is that there is a difference in the choices you make, as the player you just have to extrapolate it in your mind, which sucks (especially considering the added plotholes, thematic discrepencies, etc).

Yep, which means advertisement integrity is even more important.

[DuneMuadDib]

xeNNN wrote...

I think personally for me what pushed me to purchase mass effect 3 was 50% experience with previous games and the sheer enjoyment i got out of them, and what the developers and producers and "critics" said, however a lot of what they said didnt even cross over into the games experience though i do agree its an amazing game barely anything they said about the game was actually there.

especially the quote from casey, which stated that you wont get an A B C ending but thats bassically what we got. :/.

Nah, we didn't get A, B, C endings.  Those are letters.

We got colors.  Totally different.

Also totally divorced from any singleplayer choice we made before starchild.

Hold the Line.

[seek37]

glad someone pointed this out. last thing I want is for bioware to be categorized as another molyneux...

[McScroggz24]

Myrmedus wrote...

McScroggz24 wrote...

whydoyouwanttoknow wrote...

Rulycar wrote...

whydoyouwanttoknow wrote...

The law on false advertising in Australia says that it's false advertising if it makes claims that are untrue, or something like that. I imagine it's the same most places.

Are interviews advertising?
For that matter ...
... Is false advertising subject to criminal or civil code?

Let me ask you this.  Say you go down to your local....... let's say Ford dealership.  The salesperson tells you all these cool features that the car comes with.  You buy it.  You take it home.  It comes with none.  Is it too bad because it wasn't in a physical ad?  Or you hear him on the radio in an interview saying all the cool features that his car comes with.  Is that too bad?

Of course not. Everything they say about their product is advertising it.

The disconnect between this way of thinking, in which you can literally show that a car that was promised to have side airbags clearly does not, and what ME3 has is that there is a difference in the choices you make, as the player you just have to extrapolate it in your mind, which sucks (especially considering the added plotholes, thematic discrepencies, etc).

Yep, which means advertisement integrity is even more important.

100% agree. I just feel that claiming false advertising is erronious unless referring to a metaphorical sense, which I understand plent do. Filing an FTC complaint however is not only giving the movement a bad face but also is just erronious.

[firebreather19]

DuneMuadDib wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Still not the same. Like I said, I could probably go and find 20 products you've used or have that promise things they're not delivering. That means you just got sucker punched twenty times throughout the past couple years, but what...this one time you're going to get mad about it? That's my point. 

Some of us complain because we care that much.  Star Wars for me has become a major disappointment, but I just don't care enough about it anymore to voice that opinion.

Mass Effect took a strong hold for me, I rapidly became a passionate fan and player and was eager to eat up as much of the universe as possible, buy all kinda of merchandise and proudly proclaim that I enjoyed the product.  Then there was the Mass Effect 3 ending, and it was disappointing.

Reading the interview quotes makes the ending more embarrassing to me, because it fails to equal the quality of the rest of the product and it's disparate from what we were told it would be.  I can achieve the same three colors by doing every single mission and fetch quest and "i agree with X" discussion in the game, or I can just play a bunch of multiplayer and blow off everything that I don't have to do to progress in singleplayer.  That runs contrary to being told my choices in singleplayer mattered.

I understand that, but again it's missing the point...you, like me, are a huge ME fan. I 've also bought merchandise (still waiting on my iPhone case Bioware <_<) and if you're that big, nothing was going to stop you from playing that game day 1. 

Also, you can't just play multiplayer and say "Hey, I'm ready to fight the Reapers now" as soon as you get on the Normandy. The side missions and gathering of war assets is just a different way of reaching it. You can spend your time a) convincing smaller entities to join up with you in the effort or play the part of elite squads sent to hold important areas and defend them from Reaper/Cerberus/Geth control to gain the upper hand.

Heck, that in itself IS a choice.

[HellishFiend]

Not sure if this is considered contributing or not, but I actually feel more optimistic after getting refreshed on these Q&A. Why? Because I do believe Bioware fully intends to follow through, and has intended so from the start. As a part of that delivery, they are blurring the line between player and character. Once everyone has had a chance to experience the ending as it is, they will be revealing the follow up to the player at the same time and manner that it would be revealed to Shepard, and invoking the same emotions.

[firebreather19]

Myrmedus wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://business.fina...-all-audiences/

“I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are optimal for different people”

That comment killed me the most, for in my opinion it was the most important thing to include in ME3 - and a mechanic that would've given BW breathing room to try a more 'artistic' ending as one of the options - and yet was completely and utterly absent, to my absolute shock.

I don't know about that, I think whatever folks picked on their first playthrough (which seemed, from a lot of talk, to be the initial "what I would do" run) determined what type of person they were...whether they would be willing to risk controlling the reapers, sacrificing the Geth and Edi to destroy them, or believe the uniting of every organic and synthetic life would be the better ending. It was really telling of each individual's personality. 

That's like saying everyone's personality can be categorized into 3 boxes. Besides, I would argue (and obviously like many others) there wasn't a single 'optimal' ending for me, or anything close.

Besides, the outcome of those endings - the visual outcomes - are very much the same.

True, but that's a different conversation, more about Shepard and the Reapers and whether that situation could've ever actually been more than it was. Some argued why not just stick with conventional warfare. Sure, you could, but you also just witnessed it taking multiple fleet's firepower just to take down one Reaper. And not even decimated...barely destroyed. Just enough that it couldn't function, but still enough that it could give Shepard a figurative dying cackle. And you expect them to take on an army of those beings? Nothing aside from a miracle was going to save the galaxy from the Reapers. Or maybe if you got Chris Redfield to punch each Reaper in the face. That guy punches boulders like a pro, I think he might be able to handle it. 

No, my point was more based upon the fact that decisions throughout the entire series and ME3 specifically were meant to shape the paths you took on a journey that was meant to fork out more broadly, and earlier at that, so the endings you arrived at quite a bit varied compared to another person's.

The only conclusive fork in ME3 is at the very end. It is like a trident when it should've been like the branch of a tree, at least based upon their claims.

Those are inferred claims, not what they actually said. They didn't specify enough, and they also didn't make the effort to clarify if anyone was mistaken, but it is a business. Again, nothing new. 

[McScroggz24]

Firebreather19, one thing I will say is seemingly if you purchase ME3 and hadn't previously played or imported previous saves, I'm fairly sure that in order to get a high enough War Asset rating for good endings is to play the multiplayer. I imported my save, missed a few assets and never touched MP yet my Shep lived. So in that respect MP does play into. Though Casey has an out in that all the ending/s are virtually the same, haha circular logic helps and hurts BioWare.

[dubdevo]

I remember reading an interview in game informer....maybe it was ray??? Sorry I'll try and dig up the article, but basically my expectations for mass effect have always been large and bioware exceeds those expectations by miles. After reading the article about ME3 it really seemed like the endings were going to be more complex, and that they were going to close the story by giving us the answers. I truly believe their intentions were to provide this, but the delivery didn't work. I have no idea what happens: where and when (locations) how (normandy sequence) and who (crew members) made it out alive.......aside from maybe my shepard who very well could have had an agonal respiration. Its still possible to create an open ending while answering questions.

[Rulycar]

whydoyouwanttoknow wrote...

Rulycar wrote...

whydoyouwanttoknow wrote...

The law on false advertising in Australia says that it's false advertising if it makes claims that are untrue, or something like that. I imagine it's the same most places.

Are interviews advertising?
For that matter ...
... Is false advertising subject to criminal or civil code?

Let me ask you this.  Say you go down to your local....... let's say Ford dealership.  The salesperson tells you all these cool features that the car comes with.  You buy it.  You take it home.  It comes with none.  Is it too bad because it wasn't in a physical ad?  Or you hear him on the radio in an interview saying all the cool features that his car comes with.  Is that too bad?

Of course not. Everything they say about their product is advertising it.

Okay ...
... that doesn't answer my questions.

[additional]
Near as I can figure ...
... impossible to prove criminal false advertising
Let's look at civil false advertising ...
... if you preordered before false statements were made,
... ... impossible to prove injury
... if you preordered after false statements were made,
... ... slightly less than impossible to prove injury
Yeppers ...
... I don't think false advertising is worth arguing before a court.

Best bet: Better Business Bureau complaint

Modifié par Rulycar, 23 mars 2012 - 12:17 .

[firebreather19]

For instance, if you imported a save where you saved the base and chose to destroy the Reapers even though your Readiness is below a certain amount, Earth is destroyed. You can only save it at that point by choosing Control. Whereas if you destroyed the base, at the same Readiness you can choose Control and it will destroy Earth, whereas choosing Destroy will save it. Obviously most people will do their best to get the most readiness and strength they can, but this is no different than making sure they get everyone loyal in ME2 and putting the correct person in the correct spot.

[firebreather19]

McScroggz24 wrote...

Firebreather19, one thing I will say is seemingly if you purchase ME3 and hadn't previously played or imported previous saves, I'm fairly sure that in order to get a high enough War Asset rating for good endings is to play the multiplayer. I imported my save, missed a few assets and never touched MP yet my Shep lived. So in that respect MP does play into. Though Casey has an out in that all the ending/s are virtually the same, haha circular logic helps and hurts BioWare.

I'm pretty sure if your Shep lived without playing MP, that your rating is pretty high since that's the highest unlockable, right? 

Either way MP is addicting anyways, so I'm glad it helps out my single player some nonetheless. 

[AlexMBrennan]

I'm sure that it has been said before, but for the record I'm sure that EA/Bioware made sure that none of interviews are legally binding product description/advert/whatever (I.e. They would not have let employees make such claims if they were legally binding or could constitute false advertising).

On the other hand, insisting on this technicality would be an admission of deception, which would probably be worse.

[DuneMuadDib]

firebreather19 wrote...

Also, you can't just play multiplayer and say "Hey, I'm ready to fight the Reapers now" as soon as you get on the Normandy. The side missions and gathering of war assets is just a different way of reaching it. You can spend your time a) convincing smaller entities to join up with you in the effort or play the part of elite squads sent to hold important areas and defend them from Reaper/Cerberus/Geth control to gain the upper hand.

Heck, that in itself IS a choice.

Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....ry_details.html

"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a totally different way of playing"

It is mathematically impossible to achieve the necessary war assets for the "breathe" ending without playing SOME multiplayer.  The quote CLEARLY states that ALL ending are available if you do not play multiplayer, and that is not true.

I concede it is a choice to play multiplayer instead of doing every side-quest to get high war assets.  MY point is that playing more multiplayer renders singleplayer choices irrelevant, which is contrary to what was intimated in various interviews.

[charmedmeat]

Thomas Abram wrote...

Silveralen wrote...

Thomas Abram wrote...

Pruned. I don't sleep people, keep it civil, on topic and if you post make sure it furthers the discussion.

Not to be rude, but can you be a bit more specific? I'm kinda worrying everytime I resond to something in this thread.

You have nothing to be worried about if you make sure your post doesnt land in any of the following:

- Troll
- Useless
- 1,000 other people in this thread said the exact same thing
- Anything against BSN's code of conduct

I hope this clears things up. The last thing we want to do is oppress those who actually have something useful to say.

I've got a serious problem with the following:

- Useless
- 1,000 other people in this thread said the exact same thing

Nowhere in the terms of service does it say I can't do either, which leads me to believe you're just trying to keep the post count down on this topic.  Can you please explain why you are actively deleting posts which are in no way against your terms of service, and are so subjective you use the term useless to describe them?

[McScroggz24]

firebreather19 wrote...

McScroggz24 wrote...

Firebreather19, one thing I will say is seemingly if you purchase ME3 and hadn't previously played or imported previous saves, I'm fairly sure that in order to get a high enough War Asset rating for good endings is to play the multiplayer. I imported my save, missed a few assets and never touched MP yet my Shep lived. So in that respect MP does play into. Though Casey has an out in that all the ending/s are virtually the same, haha circular logic helps and hurts BioWare.

I'm pretty sure if your Shep lived without playing MP, that your rating is pretty high since that's the highest unlockable, right? 

Either way MP is addicting anyways, so I'm glad it helps out my single player some nonetheless. 

MP is quite addicting. My point was that there is contention about the statement that the SP isn't dependent on MP for the best ending/s which actually, I believe, untrue. Sure, I imported my save and was fine so the statement was true. But looking at the list of choices the game assumes happened if you play a fresh game in ME3 I doesn't appear that there are enough War Assets to get the best ending/s, making Casey's statement false. Disclaimer, I haven't played through ME3 with a new character.

[firebreather19]

DuneMuadDib wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Also, you can't just play multiplayer and say "Hey, I'm ready to fight the Reapers now" as soon as you get on the Normandy. The side missions and gathering of war assets is just a different way of reaching it. You can spend your time a) convincing smaller entities to join up with you in the effort or play the part of elite squads sent to hold important areas and defend them from Reaper/Cerberus/Geth control to gain the upper hand.

Heck, that in itself IS a choice.

Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....ry_details.html

"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a totally different way of playing"

It is mathematically impossible to achieve the necessary war assets for the "breathe" ending without playing SOME multiplayer.  The quote CLEARLY states that ALL ending are available if you do not play multiplayer, and that is not true.

I concede it is a choice to play multiplayer instead of doing every side-quest to get high war assets.  MY point is that playing more multiplayer renders singleplayer choices irrelevant, which is contrary to what was intimated in various interviews.

Guy below you just said he did it. So much for mathematically impossible.????

[firebreather19]

DuneMuadDib wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Also, you can't just play multiplayer and say "Hey, I'm ready to fight the Reapers now" as soon as you get on the Normandy. The side missions and gathering of war assets is just a different way of reaching it. You can spend your time a) convincing smaller entities to join up with you in the effort or play the part of elite squads sent to hold important areas and defend them from Reaper/Cerberus/Geth control to gain the upper hand.

Heck, that in itself IS a choice.

Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....ry_details.html

"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a totally different way of playing"

It is mathematically impossible to achieve the necessary war assets for the "breathe" ending without playing SOME multiplayer.  The quote CLEARLY states that ALL ending are available if you do not play multiplayer, and that is not true.

I concede it is a choice to play multiplayer instead of doing every side-quest to get high war assets.  MY point is that playing more multiplayer renders singleplayer choices irrelevant, which is contrary to what was intimated in various interviews.

Also it doesn't make single player choices irrelevant, it just make your choice of going out to gather war assets--by, say, scanning planets--irrelevant, because you don't need to. 

[mi_dad]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

What worries me though is, if they do decide to do new endings, will they be able to just call up all the voice actors and whatnot and say "hey guyz, cancel all your plans and come back to[wherever studio they record voices is], we finally decided to fix what we started!"

Idk a whole lot about that stuff but unless its a legit, full add-on DLC or something(like Fallout 3's Brotherhood of Steel) then I dont think they can or will get everyone involved again just for a different ending. Hopefully they can though. :/

I think you may be over estimating how long it takes to record the dialog.  There was a interview on a local morning show here in Detroit a few years back with Yeardley Smith, who is the voice of Lisa Simpson, and she said, if I recall correctly, she works about 4 hours per week. I am also pretty sure she stated  in that 4 hours they would do 3 or 4 episodes. 

Modifié par mi_dad, 23 mars 2012 - 12:27 .