612 réponses à ce sujet

[DuneMuadDib]

firebreather19 wrote...

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. 

Okay, I might be wrong on the math.  Everything I'd seen indicated it wasn't possible in SP, especially with some bugged quests.

Killing the Rachni Queen or not.  Destroying the Collector Base or not.   Saving the council or not.  Killing Wrex or not. Cure the Genophage or not.

Those are all unavoidable decisions over the course of the singleplayer campaign across the games. Explain to me how any of those choices aren't rendered irrelevant if I play an hour of multiplayer to raise my readiness.

[LeftyLike2]

I just don't get it..
They clearly had alot of ideas for the end (at least at one point)
So why the change?

I didn't want it to end like that, but i don't want to force them to change anything.."Misery" comes to mind. 
...get the sledgehammer..

[charmedmeat]

LeftyLike2 wrote...

Did you not see the myriad of posts about violence and threats locking down the thread?  Did you not see the myriad posts where the bioware person talked about deleting posts?  Deleting for being "useless"  How do you think a threat of violence will make them respond? You should delete this.

[Scoob]

charmedmeat wrote...

LeftyLike2 wrote...

Did you not see the myriad of posts about violence and threats locking down the thread?  Did you not see the myriad posts where the bioware person talked about deleting posts?  Deleting for being "useless"  How do you think a threat of violence will make them respond? You should delete this.

Read his post again.

[Jadebaby]

__HOLD__THE__LINE__

I hope this will all be addressed in April.

[Reign Tsumiraki]

You know, I'm honestly willing to excuse a lot of that PR talk. A lot of it is trying to make the game seem better than it is. I honestly enjoyed the game. A lot. But that ending was the worst piece of writing I have EVER seen in a video game.

Actually, I hated that ending more then I hated the entirety of Fable 2. And that's saying something.

[Isu]

Thomas Abram wrote...

Mesmurae wrote...

You know, it won't be long before this thread gets locked. Bioware has gone on a locking spree, closing down threads that point out their mistakes.

So... yeah.

You clearly read all of the posts in this thread including the second one informing people to keep on topic, civil and to further the thread so it doesn't get locked. Woops!

Uh, pardon if I see some flaws in logic (that are not there) but if theoretically some guy, or guys, persistently aiming at fighting the Retake ME3 movement start trolling in every topic, won't that make every thread prone to lockdown? Even if, lets say, everyone else remain civil?

Edit: sorry for offtop, but where to post such a thread anyways?

Modifié par Isu, 23 mars 2012 - 01:05 .

[punkenjunki3]

Regarding the assets (someone mentioned they would like them to be more significant), I too would have liked them to be more significant in the overall game as opposed what they are now, which is essentially just a form of ingame collectables.

I was hoping or would like to see them to be utilised by the player depending on the mission. Sure a higher force rating and readiness can affect overall ending, but actually have them with some strategic use too.

Allow me to indulge a little example of what I mean:

The ground fighting in London (which was EPIC but just too short IMO), at the point where you and your team are fighting to hold off the enemy whilst EDI does her thing with the launchers (to take down the reaper destroyer). Slowly you lose your flanks untill its just your team and Anderson says they are comming but thats it, its just you. What I would have liked to have seen was the ability to call in some assets to re-inforce the position to hold it with you....IE you have a context menu (or speech menu) appear showing you what assets you have available (from what youve collected) and you can call them in. So maybe call in an asari commando/sniper unit who take up position above you to help thin out incomming enemy. Or have a defensive line of Krogan or Rachni to help the skirmish on the ground?

If the conflict in london was expanded there would be the option to do this, call in assets (hell even put them as a power on the power wheel) so you can strategically adapt your advance with your squad but augmented with the assistance from your assets on the fly?

I was kind of expecteing something like that after gathering so many assets and i feel the potential for an excellent combat sequence. And then of course to add the edge, the resources you use are depleted by amount lost in battle therefore reducing your military strength....there even could be paragon/renegade consequences too....para shep adopts defensive tactics for max survival (but maybe a longer conflict) and renegade shep basically sends em over the top on the whistle. Whatever youve got left could then give you final edge at the end of the game, im not talking star child im talking an epic fight...boss battle whatever. I just wanted there to be a bang at the end not a whimper. They could have just have easily depicted sacrifice by sending people to thier deaths against an impossible foe, but knowing it had to be done....post end game you would have seen your shep comming to terms with what they had to do to win, and wondering if like TIM they had sacrificed too much... again para and renegade outcomes. Para shep saves the most men (but the longer combat has obliterated london and the citadel) renegade shep (london is ruined, but salvagable and the citadel is intact).

Ahh. Yeah i just wanted an epic fight. Not the ending we got (yeah endING)

Sorry if i lost you in that rant but thats my 2 pennies.

[MeldarthX]

I'd like answers also.......


HOLD THE LINE

[BostonVamp]

I hope my opinion on this is okay to post here as it counters an earlier poster in this thread. It addresses the issue of not liking an ending vs. feeling as if we have been sold a false bill of goods. My intent is to demonstrate my point that I, and I'm sure many others, know the difference between not liking an ending and not delivering on goods that were advertised / marketed.

In playing DAO, there is an ending where a main character can die; in fact I accidently got this ending on my first playthrough. Did I like that ending? No. Did it make me happy? No. Did I complain to Bioware to remove that ending because I didn't like it? No and here is why:

1) The ending was completely based on the choices I did or didn't make in the game. That ending was fully under my control and was the consequences of my own choices. I didn't have to get it again if I didn't want.

2) The ending was completely relevant to the plot / storyline and did not break any lore that had been previously established during the game.

3) There was closure for that character, for companions and for Ferelden. I knew the effect / outcome that ending had on my little universe.

In contrast, as the OP so eloquently summarized, the ME3 ending didn't address any of those 3 points: 1) choices made during ME 3 mattered; 2) consistent with plot / story and lore previously stated in all 3 ME games and 3) closure for Shepard, crew, Normandy, aliens / races, Earth, galaxy.

I hope I have made my point and you can see that it's not about "not liking" an ending. It's about an ending not living up to the promises made to me, as a consumer, by Bioware. Thanks for reading! Hold the line!

[firebreather19]

DuneMuadDib wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

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. 

Okay, I might be wrong on the math.  Everything I'd seen indicated it wasn't possible in SP, especially with some bugged quests.

Killing the Rachni Queen or not.  Destroying the Collector Base or not.   Saving the council or not.  Killing Wrex or not. Cure the Genophage or not.

Those are all unavoidable decisions over the course of the singleplayer campaign across the games. Explain to me how any of those choices aren't rendered irrelevant if I play an hour of multiplayer to raise my readiness.

I don't understand. You literally can't get to the end of te gamie without doing most of those things. Mp doesn't replace those, but it does replace gathering artifacts and giving banners to people and such.

[jb1983]

I am curious to hear from Bioware on their response to this. Do they view the endings as consistent with what they promised? If so, then it's not (legally) false advertising. Do they think they fell short? Were they actually intending to advertise, or just explaining what they *thought* they were doing? In other words, it's kind of hard to prove false advertising.

That being said, I don't think we'll ever hear back from Bioware on this because:
1) They'd get ripped apart anyway - whether or not their responses were justified
2) They shouldn't have to (though it'd be interesting) because video game developers aren't salesmen; they're going to say things that are a bit out of proportion. That's because they have a passion for games.

[DuneMuadDib]

firebreather19 wrote...

DuneMuadDib wrote...

Okay, I might be wrong on the math.  Everything I'd seen indicated it wasn't possible in SP, especially with some bugged quests.

Killing the Rachni Queen or not.  Destroying the Collector Base or not.   Saving the council or not.  Killing Wrex or not. Cure the Genophage or not.

Those are all unavoidable decisions over the course of the singleplayer campaign across the games. Explain to me how any of those choices aren't rendered irrelevant if I play an hour of multiplayer to raise my readiness.

I don't understand. You literally can't get to the end of te gamie without doing most of those things. Mp doesn't replace those, but it does replace gathering artifacts and giving banners to people and such.

I'll try to express my point, I don't seem to be getting it across.  You agree that these are all choices you CANNOT avoid during gameplay, right?

My question is, why do these decisions matter?  If our choices are supposed to matter and affect the game and how it all ends, what difference do any of these choices make?  They affect how many war assets you have, and that's it.  They have absolutely no effect on the ending at all.

What diffence do they make when Starchild asks me to pick a color?  What difference does it make if I collect a banner off some random planet OR play a game of MP.  What difference do the choices make in the end?

I romanced Miranda in ME2.  If I break up with her at the beginning of ME3 she will die.  There is a clear result to that choice.  If I don't break up immediately and either do or don't later she may or may not die based on other choices.  There is a clear result to that.  She was a major supporting character in ME2, it personally affects my character.

If I destroy the Collector Ship what difference does it make? I get a different color ending in ME2, and I get fewer numbers in ME3 than if I don't destroy it?  What does it matter when I can make up the numbers some other way?

In ME2 if I tunnel vision and I don't do any loyalty missions people will die.  There is no way to prevent people dying on the ground if I blow off the loyalty missions.  Those decisions matter, they affect things.  In ME3 if I blow off all the fetch quests and don't get enough numbers I go play MP and I get my number multiplier up and things are fine.  The choice to blow something off in singleplayer doesn't matter because I can fix it in MP.  Doing MP is a choice, but it's not a narrative choice, it's not an RPG choice.  The option to render the RPG choices irrelevant with MP shows that the RPG choices don't matter.

[RedTail F22]

Silveralen wrote...

Thomas Abram wrote...

We have locked a handful of threads on this subject due to them getting out of hand. Please keep this civil, constructive and on topic to avoid the samething happening here.

We will try! Also, thank you for warning us rather than locking it premeptively.

Also, when I saw the little Bioware sign underneath the topic name......... I thought a Dev was going to finally comment. Oh well

lmao me too. Needless to say I was let down when I noticed it was just a warning. Still though, maybe in the future they can answer as to why they decided to do false advertising. That was not the time to pick the Renegade route. Your choices have consequeces Bioware. Never thought I'd have to tell you that....

[FS3D]

We need to be careful. If the mods see fit, they have the power to lock the thread simply by claiming we have lied about their false advertising (despite the existence of evidence to the contrary). I don't want to see another thread locked due to some mod claiming s/he is sick of our "lies" (which most of us have gone out of our way to ensure don't happen).

Hold the line, but be very careful not to give them any more ammunition.

[Vorodill]

So Bioware lied. It is sad.If only they said before release :

"Plans changed. We're gonna try something different for the ending..."

When a friend tell me many lies, I don't trust him anymore. If he says he is truly sorry and that he will make up for it, I will consider forgiving him.

Bioware didn't even say they were sorry. Nothing. They are a business, so I'll give them some time. They are preparing an announcement in April.

If I don't hear "we're sorry", I will feel insulted. And I will ignore them. That's what I would do with a friend, that's what I'll do with Bioware.

[paynesgrey]

Can't say I'd call it "false advertising" or consider it something legally actionable. I mean, Uwe Boll promises epic stories with moving and deeply thought provoking content, and nobody's been able to sue him yet, after all.

[DuneMuadDib]

Vorodill wrote...

So Bioware lied. It is sad.If only they said before release :

"Plans changed. We're gonna try something different for the ending..."

When a friend tell me many lies, I don't trust him anymore. If he says he is truly sorry and that he will make up for it, I will consider forgiving him.

Bioware didn't even say they were sorry. Nothing. They are a business, so I'll give them some time. They are preparing an announcement in April.

If I don't hear "we're sorry", I will feel insulted. And I will ignore them. That's what I would do with a friend, that's what I'll do with Bioware.

This right here.  I have my trust broken, and I'm cautiously optimistic that Bioware can earn it back.

If before release they said aluded to any changes in the development I don't think I would feel so betrayed.  My disappointment over the ending would remain, but I don't think my trust would be damaged.

[FS3D]

BostonVamp wrote...

I hope my opinion on this is okay to post here as it counters an earlier poster in this thread. It addresses the issue of not liking an ending vs. feeling as if we have been sold a false bill of goods. My intent is to demonstrate my point that I, and I'm sure many others, know the difference between not liking an ending and not delivering on goods that were advertised / marketed.

In playing DAO, there is an ending where a main character can die; in fact I accidently got this ending on my first playthrough. Did I like that ending? No. Did it make me happy? No. Did I complain to Bioware to remove that ending because I didn't like it? No and here is why:

1) The ending was completely based on the choices I did or didn't make in the game. That ending was fully under my control and was the consequences of my own choices. I didn't have to get it again if I didn't want.

2) The ending was completely relevant to the plot / storyline and did not break any lore that had been previously established during the game.

3) There was closure for that character, for companions and for Ferelden. I knew the effect / outcome that ending had on my little universe.

In contrast, as the OP so eloquently summarized, the ME3 ending didn't address any of those 3 points: 1) choices made during ME 3 mattered; 2) consistent with plot / story and lore previously stated in all 3 ME games and 3) closure for Shepard, crew, Normandy, aliens / races, Earth, galaxy.

I hope I have made my point and you can see that it's not about "not liking" an ending. It's about an ending not living up to the promises made to me, as a consumer, by Bioware. Thanks for reading! Hold the line!

++Infinity

[DuneMuadDib]

paynesgrey wrote...

Can't say I'd call it "false advertising" or consider it something legally actionable. I mean, Uwe Boll promises epic stories with moving and deeply thought provoking content, and nobody's been able to sue him yet, after all.

Anyone who believes a word Uwe Boll says has only themself to blame.

We trusted Bioware.

[ghrthtdhdfhdh]

Reign Tsumiraki wrote...

You know, I'm honestly willing to excuse a lot of that PR talk. A lot of it is trying to make the game seem better than it is. I honestly enjoyed the game. A lot. But that ending was the worst piece of writing I have EVER seen in a video game.

Actually, I hated that ending more then I hated the entirety of Fable 2. And that's saying something.

...and thanks for making me flash back to realizing there was no way to be rid of the stupid dog.

[ghrthtdhdfhdh]

FS3D wrote...

BostonVamp wrote...

I hope my opinion on this is okay to post here as it counters an earlier poster in this thread. It addresses the issue of not liking an ending vs. feeling as if we have been sold a false bill of goods. My intent is to demonstrate my point that I, and I'm sure many others, know the difference between not liking an ending and not delivering on goods that were advertised / marketed.

In playing DAO, there is an ending where a main character can die; in fact I accidently got this ending on my first playthrough. Did I like that ending? No. Did it make me happy? No. Did I complain to Bioware to remove that ending because I didn't like it? No and here is why:

1) The ending was completely based on the choices I did or didn't make in the game. That ending was fully under my control and was the consequences of my own choices. I didn't have to get it again if I didn't want.

2) The ending was completely relevant to the plot / storyline and did not break any lore that had been previously established during the game.

3) There was closure for that character, for companions and for Ferelden. I knew the effect / outcome that ending had on my little universe.

In contrast, as the OP so eloquently summarized, the ME3 ending didn't address any of those 3 points: 1) choices made during ME 3 mattered; 2) consistent with plot / story and lore previously stated in all 3 ME games and 3) closure for Shepard, crew, Normandy, aliens / races, Earth, galaxy.

I hope I have made my point and you can see that it's not about "not liking" an ending. It's about an ending not living up to the promises made to me, as a consumer, by Bioware. Thanks for reading! Hold the line!

++Infinity

++Infinity plus one.

[cutegigi]

BostonVamp wrote...
-snip-

In playing DAO, there is an ending where a main character can die; in fact I accidently got this ending on my first playthrough. Did I like that ending? No. Did it make me happy? No. Did I complain to Bioware to remove that ending because I didn't like it? No and here is why:
-snip-

sorry if this post feel redundant, just want to state that I totally agree with your post. 
In case bioware still looking for constructive criticism on how to fix ME3, please please please take a looooong look on this. 
Thank you.

[Dark Gryphon]

They have certainly lost any sort of trust from me. As from all the quotes listed above, they promised a story with diverse endings. Right now I think the best thing they can do is come out and say, " Guys. We screwed up. I'm sorry. You all deserve better."

Modifié par Dark Gryphon, 23 mars 2012 - 02:42 .