612 réponses à ce sujet

[firebreather19]

The Angry One wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

A big question I have is, with or without the suggested false advertising, would it have changed anything? How many of you would or would not have bought the game if you only knew it was coming out and had heard nothing from Hudson, Gamble, etc.? The biggest advertisement for that game were ME1 and ME2. Hudson could have said I'd be running around in a tutu for an hour and I'd still buy the game new, collectors edition, at midnight.

I will say again, I bought the Collector's Edition and spent the extra money based on the promises made.
It very much influenced my decision.

So you wouldn't have purchased ME3 at all if they'd just made the game and never have pre-release interviews?

[SuperTeal]

firebreather19 wrote...

Anything said before the game's official release really isn't admissible because there's no proof something wasn't changed.

I'm not sure I agree.  Advertising serves a single purpose:  to inform a customer base and sell a product.  If the advertisement misrepresents the product, even before the products launch, then the advertising in question is false.

And in this case there is plenty of proof from pre-release comments and "The Final Hours" iOS app that point out that Bioware/Bioware representatives like Hudson made advertising statements that are turning out to be false.

The big question is whether or not this was intentional.  If Bioware was just being sloppy in their advertising, and if Casey Hudson didn't think it was important to inform the customers of the change in the endings direction, thats fine - sloppy and shows a lack of integrity, but it's not "false advertising."  What isn't fine is if they intentionally held back information about the change to the end's direction because they feared that people might not buy the product.

It's a complicated situation - but we can't invalidate advertising or publicity released before launch.  That doesn't make much sense.  If we do that then we might as well stop advertising, because most advertisements are made prior to a products release.

[The Angry One]

firebreather19 wrote...

Lavits75 wrote...

ME2 could end in so many different ways. The whole non-party crew could die or be saved. Everyone party crew member could die or all could make it out alive. 98% of them could live and one dies. And the person who dies varies completely. You could hand over the base or destroy it.

ME2 had so many different aspects to it's ending and you knew what was going on. ME3 had three choices. Red, blue, or green. There were almost no differences, no explanations.

Not really, there were 2 endings...base destroyed or base salvaged, and 2 subendings for each...shep lives, shep dies...with different loyalty missions and placement of characters determining whether they live or die. Treat ME3 like one big suicide mission and you'll see it's really the same.

Like hell it is. Your choices in ME2 mattered in the end, it determined who lived and who died with both loyalty missions and ship upgrades.
Nothing you do in ME3 matters, no matter what you still get the same ending where the galaxy is destroyed, in 3 coloured variants. Oh and if you get enough EMS you unlock the super secret ending where you do what Saren wanted all along! 
Yeah that's not the story I wanted to shape.

[Sentox6]

I don't how anyone to argue that it all comes down to subjective interpretation in light of a quote like this:

Hudson: “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to
build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about
eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming
to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more
different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions
that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s
not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say
how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The
endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.”

That's exactly what it's like.

[The Angry One]

firebreather19 wrote...

So you wouldn't have purchased ME3 at all if they'd just made the game and never have pre-release interviews?

If they hadn't have made the promises they made I probably wouldn't have bought the CE.
If ME3 hadn't come from a developer with BioWare's reputation, and I didn't expect at least as much choice as in ME2 I wouldn't have pre ordered it, at least. I might've waited for a price drop, I don't know.

[Syrellaris]

The Angry One wrote...

Syrellaris wrote...

Actually, I doubt you can call it false advertising to be honest. You could copy and paste the websters Dictionairy outline of advertisement as much as you want, but that does not make things Bioware developers say advertising.

Specially when everything they say during the development process falls under the "subject to change" line.

So no, I do not think they lied or made any promises that were set in stone.

Except, from Final Hours, we know they were planning this crummy railroad ending from the start.
So we were in fact mislead.

I still have my questions regarding the intergrity of the Final hours Application. I do not question that bioware has given there consent to use the material, but I do question the maker's intentions with it. A lot of it, he might have pulled out of extend.

[alx119]

What else there is to add really. I do agree that in many ways we were led, or simply not told the truth in extent. But, I don't think that they can do anything about it now. It's not like they are going to stop using the "Take Back Earth" motto, or that they are going to add in their games boxes: "P.S: The ending sucks"

One thing is to demand some sort of compensation for an ending that we were led to believe was going to meet our expectations, the expectations that they put it our minds. And perhaps some sort of apology, a little "We're sorry we said certain things that did not met your expectatives guys".

But asking for them to lose their branding isn't fair either. It sucks for us who bought the game, and finished it, but I don't think it's possible to change their advertisements now. It's in many ways false advertising and lies of omision, yes, but it's too late to change that now.

Boxing, making ads and coming up with new ideas, and spreading them costs money, A LOT of money, I rather see that money spent in a good ending rather than in a more accurate advertisement. Mainly because, if they do fix the disappointment that is the ending, their advertisement becomes true.

[I RJay I]

MattFini wrote...

I RJay I wrote...

Guys, I have read most of the posts on this thread and it seems that some of you are forgetting that we've been given an official statement that says we will be getting something to do with the ending and that they will give us more information then.

That's just it though, if they think it's going to just be a patch to further explain the crappy StarChild, they can shove it.

Short of my Shep being able to blow his brains out and call in the troops (the entire galaxy I united), I really don't see it happening.  Those final choices are pretentious beyond belief and do not feel, even remotely, like the first two games.

And it sickens me becuase I fully bought into all of BW's hype leading to the game's release.  And becuase of how much I LOVED the first two games, I never, ever thought they'd let me down in this way.

But that stuff at the end isn't a logical conclusion to Mass Effect, and it's not even remotely a logical culmination of my choices.  BioWare felt they had to end the game with a "massive shakeup" that disgusts me to my core. 

I want nothing to do with StarChild and the three awful options, no matter how much further explanation goes into it.

That's true, I personally don't think they should completely change the ending.  Maybe not the indoctrination theory because there are some things a bit off with that theory.  But maybe just a hallucination, it could solve a lot of problems, maybe add in a conversation with Harbinger instead of the starchild as a last ditch attempt to stop shepard from activating the crucible.  The biggest problem is, with the ending set up how it is, the crucible and the like, they have sort of pidgeon holed the ending into a big explosion type thing that lots of things will get destroyed by.

I think I would have gone with a totally different thing entirely, like you have a devise such as the crucible which just deactivates reaper defenses or something, and you go around the galaxy using it and destroying reapers, gaining allies... the more allies you have the less casualties you recieve so more of the galaxy is remaining.  But if you don't manage to get enough allies you can lose the fight.  That was the kind of thing I was hoping for.  Oh well

I think that another thing poor about the ending in particular is that you aren't shown how your squad was getting along - apart from the 2 squadmates getting out of the normandy because of space magic - I think the scene would be much more emotional if they showed some dieing, some fighting for their lives, some injured, some fine.  It would have had much more impact than showing random infantry I don't care about.

Sorry for the long post

[Velocithon]

I agree and would like an explanation. Regardless of whether you like the current ending, these quotes irrefutably go against it. I do think there needs to be an explanation for it, mostly since the quote were from just a couple months prior to release.

If the quote came out an entire year ago, I'd let it slide obviously because things change. But not that quickly, nor as drastically.

[Tommytsunami]

firebreather19 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

A big question I have is, with or without the suggested false advertising, would it have changed anything? How many of you would or would not have bought the game if you only knew it was coming out and had heard nothing from Hudson, Gamble, etc.? The biggest advertisement for that game were ME1 and ME2. Hudson could have said I'd be running around in a tutu for an hour and I'd still buy the game new, collectors edition, at midnight.

I will say again, I bought the Collector's Edition and spent the extra money based on the promises made.
It very much influenced my decision.

So you wouldn't have purchased ME3 at all if they'd just made the game and never have pre-release interviews?

I would have still purchased the game, but maybe not the collectors edition. I'm not sure about The Angry One, but my only disappointment comes from the broken promises.... well that and the statement made by Muzyka since it seemed to imply that they were hoping fans loved the ending despite it going against everything they talked it up to be. 

[Missy_MI]

Dave Hoffman wrote...
It all reminds me of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2. Those not familiar, Google it. To make their Christmas shopping deadline, Obsidian shoved that thing out the door with an ending thrown together with sticky notes and masking tape. Some smart people dug into the game files and found loads of spoken dialog and cut-scenes for an ending that was never developed.

This whole situation has given me flashbacks to KotOR2 as well.  Glad I'm not the only one.

As for subject at hand, I think the sharp contrast between the pre-release quotes and the last 20 minutes of ME3 serve to accent why fans are so upset, but I'm not sure I entirely agree about the false advertising claim.

In my mind, wiping out the mass relays pretty much equals destroying the Mass Effect universe or turning it into something so unrecognizable as to be about the same thing.  Thus, it felt like no matter how many weighty decisions had come before, it was all rendered moot after that point.  If that is true and additional 'content initiatives' bear that conclusion out, then I will jump on the false advertising bandwagon no problem.

However, if BioWare's opinion of that event (pretty sure there are some fans with this view as well) is that the destruction of the mass relays somehow does not mean everyone in Shepard's timeline dies (or suffers horribly and then dies)  then I feel they can make a case about the 'wildly different endings'.

Why?  Because in a sense, you are deciding what races will live and die throughout the game.  If I chose to let the geth wipe out the quarians in my game, but you chose to make peace between them in yours, then we could argue that the universe after that point would indeed be very different, regardless of which colored explosion stopped the Reapers in the last 10 minutes.

For me, the relays are the sticking point.  I could use my imagination and assume the rest of my crew was off doing whatever they had planned before the final battle, but not if the state of the universe is indeed as hopeless as it currently appears to be after Shepard gets done 'saving' it.

[alx119]

Tommytsunami wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

A big question I have is, with or without the suggested false advertising, would it have changed anything? How many of you would or would not have bought the game if you only knew it was coming out and had heard nothing from Hudson, Gamble, etc.? The biggest advertisement for that game were ME1 and ME2. Hudson could have said I'd be running around in a tutu for an hour and I'd still buy the game new, collectors edition, at midnight.

I will say again, I bought the Collector's Edition and spent the extra money based on the promises made.
It very much influenced my decision.

So you wouldn't have purchased ME3 at all if they'd just made the game and never have pre-release interviews?

I would have still purchased the game, but maybe not the collectors edition. I'm not sure about The Angry One, but my only disappointment comes from the broken promises.... well that and the statement made by Muzyka since it seemed to imply that they were hoping fans loved the ending despite it going against everything they talked it up to be. 

I purchased the game and I never saw any interviews. The ending was still the most horrible thing that has happened to this franchise. And it became worse when I saw all the promises they apparently made. 

[Sequin]

Kushan101 wrote...

I see the point your making, but I can't agree. Yes, we see where the characters have progressed to from the end of ME2 and in what way they are contributing (or not) to the war against the reapers. But everything after that is left completely up in the air - we have no idea if they even survived. I would hardly call that "resolution".

That may be true. But even so, in that sense the term "resolution" becomes a bit more subjective than objective. Think of it this way... we got a resolution to what happened with the Genophage. But then the ending happens and we don't know what happened to the Krogan. A lot of these questions we have right now are things that were not necessarily related to the trilogy, per se. The genophage is related to the trilogy since it was intertwined into all three stories. The Krogan's ongoing effort really is not a part of the trilogy and was only in this past game even a possibility. If the genophage is cured, however, it is much easier to assume everything will be okay. But all stories require some sense of an assumption at the end that things will be okay based on the imagery we see... and that's why this trilogy does have its own sense of closure.

To make my point, think of the end to Return of the Jedi (I know, relating movies to games is frowned upon but I am only using this in terms of story-related analysis so I hope it is okay). At the end, we do not know really what happens to everyone. We see everyone celebrating, but what about galactic government? With the empire gone, what do the rebels replace it with? Will the star systems begin to split up and fight their owns wars for open territory? Can the rebels really achieve peace? Some people will look to the books and point out how the Empire actually isn't gone yet and how there will be a New Republic... but these aren't answers we get at the end of the trilogy. All we learn at the end is that everyone is happy, everyone survived, and everyone is still together.

I think the Normandy ending sequence was an attempt at showing that the characters you love survive (resolution scene), are happy, and are together. If they did not show this scene, people would claim that there was no resolution to the question of whether or not the Normandy made it out.

In a way, the Normandy scene at the end is this trilogy's own version of an Endor party. It's all a matter of perspective, when you think about it. And in that way, there is a resolution. Your LI lives. Joker lives. Your closest friend lives. An optimist will believe everyone on the Normandy lived. If this wasn't their intent, why place the crew on a paradise looking planet? It's a lush world, meant to be an ideal setting to appeal to our sensations of peace of mind. It was their way of letting you know that everything, in the end, will work out because your friends made it through. So yes... I do believe an argument can be made that there was resolution at the end of this game.

[firebreather19]

The Angry One wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Lavits75 wrote...

ME2 could end in so many different ways. The whole non-party crew could die or be saved. Everyone party crew member could die or all could make it out alive. 98% of them could live and one dies. And the person who dies varies completely. You could hand over the base or destroy it.

ME2 had so many different aspects to it's ending and you knew what was going on. ME3 had three choices. Red, blue, or green. There were almost no differences, no explanations.

Not really, there were 2 endings...base destroyed or base salvaged, and 2 subendings for each...shep lives, shep dies...with different loyalty missions and placement of characters determining whether they live or die. Treat ME3 like one big suicide mission and you'll see it's really the same.

Like hell it is. Your choices in ME2 mattered in the end, it determined who lived and who died with both loyalty missions and ship upgrades.
Nothing you do in ME3 matters, no matter what you still get the same ending where the galaxy is destroyed, in 3 coloured variants. Oh and if you get enough EMS you unlock the super secret ending where you do what Saren wanted all along! 
Yeah that's not the story I wanted to shape.

Not sure what you mean, the galaxy is very much not destroyed? 
That's all subjective. Everything I did in ME3 mattered. 

But in comparison to ME2, it's still the same. If you didn't do the loyalty missions and no ship upgrades, everyone died and you had no one to catch you. Then you died.

If you don't secure enough assets, you die and Earth is destroyed. 

I can play the end sequence of ME2 over and over and it'll go the same way, just with different roles. The base destroyed/saved is the same as Reapers being destroyed/leaving of their own will/leaving because of Shepard's control. 

[firebreather19]

alx119 wrote...

Tommytsunami wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

A big question I have is, with or without the suggested false advertising, would it have changed anything? How many of you would or would not have bought the game if you only knew it was coming out and had heard nothing from Hudson, Gamble, etc.? The biggest advertisement for that game were ME1 and ME2. Hudson could have said I'd be running around in a tutu for an hour and I'd still buy the game new, collectors edition, at midnight.

I will say again, I bought the Collector's Edition and spent the extra money based on the promises made.
It very much influenced my decision.

So you wouldn't have purchased ME3 at all if they'd just made the game and never have pre-release interviews?

I would have still purchased the game, but maybe not the collectors edition. I'm not sure about The Angry One, but my only disappointment comes from the broken promises.... well that and the statement made by Muzyka since it seemed to imply that they were hoping fans loved the ending despite it going against everything they talked it up to be. 

I purchased the game and I never saw any interviews. The ending was still the most horrible thing that has happened to this franchise. And it became worse when I saw all the promises they apparently made. 

You're totally fine to be upset with the endings. Everyone is if they want to.

But drudging up this in order to justify it when it really served only to--maybe--superhype the hype that was already there really isn't excuse enough, especially when this is so common.

[Tommytsunami]

alx119 wrote...

Tommytsunami wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

A big question I have is, with or without the suggested false advertising, would it have changed anything? How many of you would or would not have bought the game if you only knew it was coming out and had heard nothing from Hudson, Gamble, etc.? The biggest advertisement for that game were ME1 and ME2. Hudson could have said I'd be running around in a tutu for an hour and I'd still buy the game new, collectors edition, at midnight.

I will say again, I bought the Collector's Edition and spent the extra money based on the promises made.
It very much influenced my decision.

So you wouldn't have purchased ME3 at all if they'd just made the game and never have pre-release interviews?

I would have still purchased the game, but maybe not the collectors edition. I'm not sure about The Angry One, but my only disappointment comes from the broken promises.... well that and the statement made by Muzyka since it seemed to imply that they were hoping fans loved the ending despite it going against everything they talked it up to be. 

I purchased the game and I never saw any interviews. The ending was still the most horrible thing that has happened to this franchise. And it became worse when I saw all the promises they apparently made. 

Oh I'm by no means condoning the ending, I would have disliked it regardless. I just don't think I would have this strong of a resentment towards it had I not known what wa promised. Honestly I wish I had gone into the game the way you had. That way I would have merely been disappointed instead of feeling betrayed. In a similar sense I was disappointed with the ending of Infamous 2, but because Suckerpunch had not promised something vastly different my disappointment to it faded. Knowing what was promised, well I doubt my disappointment towards this will go away without some sort of fix. 

And even then... I'll probably take whatever fix they make since not many game companies go about changing their ending. Some do, but not much.

[jerrinehart]

 While it's great they are "listening", it boggles me how they could make so many statements and break every single one of them. I remember reading articles in Game Informer with some of these interviews and now, I have no trust in this company. Did I enjoy almost all of this game, yes. Do I love the multiplayer, yes. But as for trust in your company, it's gone because to ME that is waaaaay too many broken promises.

I highly doubt I purchase more Bioware products, consumer trust is hard to gain back once lost.

Modifié par jerrinehart, 22 mars 2012 - 11:01 .

[Tommytsunami]

firebreather19 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Lavits75 wrote...

ME2 could end in so many different ways. The whole non-party crew could die or be saved. Everyone party crew member could die or all could make it out alive. 98% of them could live and one dies. And the person who dies varies completely. You could hand over the base or destroy it.

ME2 had so many different aspects to it's ending and you knew what was going on. ME3 had three choices. Red, blue, or green. There were almost no differences, no explanations.

Not really, there were 2 endings...base destroyed or base salvaged, and 2 subendings for each...shep lives, shep dies...with different loyalty missions and placement of characters determining whether they live or die. Treat ME3 like one big suicide mission and you'll see it's really the same.

Like hell it is. Your choices in ME2 mattered in the end, it determined who lived and who died with both loyalty missions and ship upgrades.
Nothing you do in ME3 matters, no matter what you still get the same ending where the galaxy is destroyed, in 3 coloured variants. Oh and if you get enough EMS you unlock the super secret ending where you do what Saren wanted all along! 
Yeah that's not the story I wanted to shape.

Not sure what you mean, the galaxy is very much not destroyed? 
That's all subjective. Everything I did in ME3 mattered. 

But in comparison to ME2, it's still the same. If you didn't do the loyalty missions and no ship upgrades, everyone died and you had no one to catch you. Then you died.

If you don't secure enough assets, you die and Earth is destroyed. 

I can play the end sequence of ME2 over and over and it'll go the same way, just with different roles. The base destroyed/saved is the same as Reapers being destroyed/leaving of their own will/leaving because of Shepard's control. 

That is something that should have been clarified (the universe sitll being there) as it was never mentioned that this destruction of the relays was different than what happened in Arrival. From the established lore it should be implied that everything was destroyed when the relays blew up.

I know this is just nitpicking and it isn't even a point that I care all that much about, but the fact that they didn't explain how it would be different leaves the fans to fall back on part of the lore they have already established, i.e. what happened in Arrival.

[firebreather19]

Tommytsunami wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

A big question I have is, with or without the suggested false advertising, would it have changed anything? How many of you would or would not have bought the game if you only knew it was coming out and had heard nothing from Hudson, Gamble, etc.? The biggest advertisement for that game were ME1 and ME2. Hudson could have said I'd be running around in a tutu for an hour and I'd still buy the game new, collectors edition, at midnight.

I will say again, I bought the Collector's Edition and spent the extra money based on the promises made.
It very much influenced my decision.

So you wouldn't have purchased ME3 at all if they'd just made the game and never have pre-release interviews?

I would have still purchased the game, but maybe not the collectors edition. I'm not sure about The Angry One, but my only disappointment comes from the broken promises.... well that and the statement made by Muzyka since it seemed to imply that they were hoping fans loved the ending despite it going against everything they talked it up to be. 

So knowing you got a bargain by getting the extra squad mission, Prothean character, art book, extra pack of weapons, other in-game items, steelbook case, lithograph (admittedly not the most amazing one ever), patch, and comic book,..it was really just fueled by the interviews you read? As long as it said Collector's Edition and had a big question mark on it and suggested it was a grab bag, you'd still go for it because of what they said? 

Not trying to be antagonistic I just want people to be honest with themselves here. I watched E3 and an hour later had my game reserved. Not because of what anyone said, but because I was always going to have it reserved, ever since ME1.

[AlexXIV]

People, stop arguing with trolls. They will just drag you everywhere to get the thread closed. ME2 is off topic, discuss it in the ME2 forum. However I think the OP is pretty clear about the point of false advertising. I mean you can't even stretch it so the things can somehow be justified. However, I don't think they planned lying to us. They probably talked about a version of the game that didn't make it into the final product. However, and apology from Bioware would be in order. I mean, ffs, can they not once in a lifetime just say that some crap happened or whatever? It's not like people can't see it.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 mars 2012 - 11:01 .

[firebreather19]

Tommytsunami wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Lavits75 wrote...

ME2 could end in so many different ways. The whole non-party crew could die or be saved. Everyone party crew member could die or all could make it out alive. 98% of them could live and one dies. And the person who dies varies completely. You could hand over the base or destroy it.

ME2 had so many different aspects to it's ending and you knew what was going on. ME3 had three choices. Red, blue, or green. There were almost no differences, no explanations.

Not really, there were 2 endings...base destroyed or base salvaged, and 2 subendings for each...shep lives, shep dies...with different loyalty missions and placement of characters determining whether they live or die. Treat ME3 like one big suicide mission and you'll see it's really the same.

Like hell it is. Your choices in ME2 mattered in the end, it determined who lived and who died with both loyalty missions and ship upgrades.
Nothing you do in ME3 matters, no matter what you still get the same ending where the galaxy is destroyed, in 3 coloured variants. Oh and if you get enough EMS you unlock the super secret ending where you do what Saren wanted all along! 
Yeah that's not the story I wanted to shape.

Not sure what you mean, the galaxy is very much not destroyed? 
That's all subjective. Everything I did in ME3 mattered. 

But in comparison to ME2, it's still the same. If you didn't do the loyalty missions and no ship upgrades, everyone died and you had no one to catch you. Then you died.

If you don't secure enough assets, you die and Earth is destroyed. 

I can play the end sequence of ME2 over and over and it'll go the same way, just with different roles. The base destroyed/saved is the same as Reapers being destroyed/leaving of their own will/leaving because of Shepard's control. 

That is something that should have been clarified (the universe sitll being there) as it was never mentioned that this destruction of the relays was different than what happened in Arrival. From the established lore it should be implied that everything was destroyed when the relays blew up.

I know this is just nitpicking and it isn't even a point that I care all that much about, but the fact that they didn't explain how it would be different leaves the fans to fall back on part of the lore they have already established, i.e. what happened in Arrival.

They did? If Joker was near enough to a relay to be caught in red/green/blue light, I'm assuming they were close enough to be vaporized by a mass relay going nuclear. 

[firebreather19]

AlexXIV wrote...

People, stop arguing with trolls. They will just drag you everywhere to get the thread closed. ME2 is off topic, discuss it in the ME2 forum. However I think the OP is pretty clear about the point of false advertising. I mean you can't even stretch it so the things can somehow be justified. However, I don't think they planned lying on us. They probably talked about a version of the game that didn't made it into the final product. However, and apology from Bioware would be in order. I mean, ffs, can they not once in a lifetime just say that some crap happened or whatever? It's not like people can't see it.

Not off topic, it's definitely important. If people were promised things in ME2 that weren't delivered, then why didn't this happen then as well? It means it has nothing at all to do with false advertising, but the claim of false advertising is used for wanting more endings. Like I said, this has been going on for decades and I can find twenty things in every one of your homes (probably) that promise(d) to do something that it didn't. Why ME3, why Bioware, why now? Definitely not off topic.