348 réponses à ce sujet

[Peranor]

[quote]GODzilla_GSPB wrote...

The "happy ending" faction is the one I understand the least. I've seen movies / played games with bad endings where the player character was again much lesser odds then we are in ME3. I cannot believe that so many thought this would end well, in a magical and all-over victory and a big party at the end.

I expected many things, but not your typical Hollywood happy ending. Not by a long shot.[/quote]

[/quote]


Sorry, but the "typical Hollywood happy ending" argument doesnt hold water. Now if you've said " typical Hollywood bittersweet and/or cryptic ending" then maybe I would have agreed with you. Because lets face it. The happy endings as you call it is not the cliché anymore.

I've said before that I very much would like to have a more happy ending added to the game. Not to replace the current endings mind you. But just added as another option on how to end your story. If you want a happy ending then you can strive for that one. And if you like space magic then you can strive for that one.

But still a ending in ME3 can never be happy as in the ending of a Disney movie anyway considering all that has happened, even how good you do and no matter what choises you make. Billions of lives lost. Thessia, Palaven and Earth reduced to burning husks. Mass Relays gone. A huge fleet stranded around earth, an earth that by the looks of it from space should be happy if it could sustain nutrition for cockroaches over a longer period of time.
So lets face it, it looks dark and it looks grim. Even if Shepard where allowed to live and reunite with his friends the ending is still very dark.

Modifié par anorling, 25 mars 2012 - 09:21 .

[chester013]

anorling wrote...

Ok! I'll be damned but I admit. I really wanted the game to end like this:


Goddamnit! That doesn't make me a bad person.
What have the world come to when we can't even be allowed to find a little happiness in the fiction we flee to to get away from all the evil, tragedy and despair that surrounds us in the real world?!
Give me my happy ending. I deserve it and so does the story itself!

Good for you, RL has enough bull**** that we don't need to be kicked in the nuts in our free time. I'm ok with bittersweet ending, I don't enjoy munching down **** sandwiches however.

[Skeloton]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Ok I give up.
This guy is going to defend his position to the death and nothing anyone can possibly say will change his mind I'm reminded of this 

ive come to realise he is like dog chasing its tail. we're all saying he cant but he keeps thinking he cant.

[Gigamantis]

bigbade wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

bigbade wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

bigbade wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

1.) Alright, if someone asks me if I have a dog right now my answer will be yes.  If I get rid of my dog in 2 months and that same person visits me in 3 months I won't have a dog.  Did I lie to them?  

2.) Of course it's possible.  There are 10's of uncreative and unsatisfying ways I could come up with off the top of my head to handle the problems people have, but I'm not going to list them here.  The point is that in a work of science fiction everything is explainable and if you have good writers it can be done well. 

3.) ME3 was never meant to be a standalone game like ME1 could've been, and ME2 left me with more questions than ME3 did.  The collectors were a supplemental issue to the main problems; literally none of the overlying problems in the world were addressed satisfactorily because there was more content planned.  There's more content planned for ME3 as well.

1) You're warping the question, that has nothing to do with a validating someting to someone and then instead of clarifying the changes which you knew were happening, kept quiet and led them to believe your initial statement.
 if someone asked you if they could see your dog in 3 months and you say yes, then get rid of your dog but never tell them that when they ask supplementary questions you are withholding the truth aka, a lie of omission.

2) In science fiction sure, but an answer that follows with mass effect's established lore and continuity? Still waiting for that PM/other thread. 

3) ME2 leaves you with the questions about the reaper plot, but the reaper invasion took a back seat to the threat at hand as the game was about the collectors abducting humans. What questions did me2 leave you with?

1.) If it was true when they were asked it wasn't a lie.  If they were asked after the change and lied then it was a lie, but you have nothing indicating that happened.  You assuming they omitted information when asked is based on nothing. 

2.) Most of the problems people have are with conception of character behavior and motive, not physical or material impossibilities.  These kinds of things are easily addressed in writing, even with something as unsatisfying as a change in character or collective opinion.

3.) At the end of just ME2 I had questions about harbringer,  the shadow broker, the genophage and mainly the reapers.  The looming reaper threat was a GAPING plothole if we weren't assuming more content. 

1) The whole BSN is asking questions about the endings...Still doesn't take away from the fact that, in this case, Gamble lied to the interviewer's face, and in more recent cases Mac Walters lied on February 28th (week before release) about the rachni consequences and the endings.
2) Not at all, complaint about space magic is far from problems with character behavior. Space magic doesn't belong in the mass effect universe because it was never established as a part of the series, star wars can handwave almost anything away as the force, mass effect doesn't have that luxury and can't permit themselves to even try if they want to respect their own lore.

3) Questions about harbinger were not answered in ME3, the shadow broker was addressed in ME2 dlc but before the dlc played an even smaller part than in ME1, the genophage storyline is expanded upon in me3 but its consequences are, also, not addressed and as said before the looming reaper threat wasn't a plothole because ME2 was simply the chapter leading up to it. I don't see what more you could have wanted to learn about the reaper invasion in ME2 if the game were to, once again, stick to its lore and stand by the fact that we know NOTHING about the reapers. 

I agree that more content is planned for ME3, that's obvious. It doesn't even have to be about Shepard (see Take Back Omega feat. Aria rumor) but advertising a conclusion to a series and not concluding 'EVERYTHING' like you put it is not satisfying for anyone. 

1.) In this case the interviewer wasn't lied to because you can't establish intent, and I'm not sure what was said about the rachni consequences.

2.) That's just silly, even if you think it needs more establishment nothing in the lore prohibits that kind of thing. 

3.) If we're assuming standalone games ME2 leaves more questions due to the reaper threat alone, though there was obviously other questions to be answered.  ME3 concluded the story without explaining everything, which creates a lot of room for extra content.  I personally like that because a lot more detail will likely go into these explanations than just trying to explain away everything quickly right at ME3's conclusion. 

1) It's a thread in story section with the article, Mac Walters says a couple things about the ending, a couple days before release, that just aren't true. But whatever, moving on.

2) Sure it does, mass effect has always been grounded in a somewhat logical fiction, they try to explain everything as fake-scientifically as possible and make it so we can relate. 99,9% of the lore is plausible because we can relate and that's what made ME great. The ending is not mass effect, yes they can add that into the lore but it is commonly accepted that adding a critical theme to the plot at the very end is poor writing. Thus the ending is not "fine".

3) I sort of agree with you here, it is nice to think that ME3 was left wide open for more content that clears things up but now you're going off the assumption that they will do that, we don't know what they have planned. 

1.) If there was some big post interview that got a lot of information about the game wrong I'd imagine the interviewee was misinformed moreso than trying to fool anyone. 

2.) Game writing is different from book writing, especially given the propensity for fractured and supplemental content in the future.  They may have wanted a concept they could build a lot of content around, and how well it ends up piecing together is an issue for future content releases.

3.) I can't see what else they could possibly do with DLC and I'm pretty sure they were at least planning for a lot of it.  I guess we'll see.

[DaJe]

1) There are many lies, not having an A B C ending was one of them. And while many more statements are not tecnically lies due to the wording, it was clear what expectations were created which were then disappointed. That is pretty much just as bad as lying.

2) After a long trilogy it is a bad idea to leave the player feeling horrible. There must be some sort of satisfaction or else the game as business has failed. It doesn't have to be a super happy end but atleast not feel like mindrape.

3) The moment players accept that they don't get a coherent ending without extra paid DLC that might come months after they played the game this industry will be doomed to be ****.

Modifié par DaJe, 25 mars 2012 - 09:24 .

[Rockworm503]

SpideyKnight wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

3.) There are many questions that still need answering and plot points that need settling.  That's pretty much what DLC is and with no loose ends there would be no conceivable reason to release more content.  You all knew there would be DLC. 

By everyone's admission the rest of the game was fantastic.  No matter what reasons you subscribe to you're overreacting and not being constructive.  Trying to sabotage the game on fan and review sites is silly.  Calling the game garbage and making empty threats on the forums is silly.  If you're disappointed voice it, but the community has been rather embarrassing on this issue.  Get your heads straight. 

And yet Casey is directly quoted as having said there will be no post-game DLC, in the final hours app.  And yet we find out that was blatantly false and in fact post-game DLC has been in production for months.  There is certainly some silliness going on here, but I would not place it squarely on the shoulders of the fanbase.  This thread however is suspect at best.  All of those are extremely poor reasons as to why the ending is "fine."

Thats just isn't it.  We were lied to and we're being lied to right now!

[Aravius]

OP

I don't need a happy ending. I just want the promises made by Bioware to be kept.

[Salis777]

chester013 wrote...

anorling wrote...

Ok! I'll be damned but I admit. I really wanted the game to end like this:


Goddamnit! That doesn't make me a bad person.
What have the world come to when we can't even be allowed to find a little happiness in the fiction we flee to to get away from all the evil, tragedy and despair that surrounds us in the real world?!
Give me my happy ending. I deserve it and so does the story itself!

Good for you, RL has enough bull**** that we don't need to be kicked in the nuts in our free time. I'm ok with bittersweet ending, I don't enjoy munching down **** sandwiches however.

Especially after the whole series theme is about overcoming overwhelming odds, heroic victory by the grunts etc etc.  Then it turns into terribly written high sci-fi in the last five minutes lol.  All they had to do was follow their own theme.  /facepalm

[AlexMBrennan]

Despite what you all want to claim you weren't "lied to."

Are you a legal expert? If not, why are you claiming your personal (necessarily due to the preceding conditional) ignorant opinion is fact?

However, assuming for the sake of an argument, that Bioware employees making factually incorrect claims in interviews does not constitute "lying". In that case, Bioware would have to argue that they should not be held to those claims because they're not legally binding product descriptions as far as truth in advertising/Sale of Goods Act is concerned. Problem with that is that it's an admission of deception.

So either Bioware is engaging in false advertising, or (technically legal but) intentional deception - Bioware maked claims in interviews prior to release, it become obvious that they would not be able to deliver the promised gaming experience, and then just released the game without so much as a word. Do you really not see a problem here?

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 25 mars 2012 - 09:26 .

[Gigamantis]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Alexraptor1 wrote...

Yes, if you ignore the gaping plotholes and how the ending completely tramples on and undoes the entire plot and story of the preceeding games, and violates all the principle tennants of narration, etc etc etc...

We were also promised the endings would not be A, B and C... which is EXACTLY what they were.

I've seen the ending and it doesn't trample on anything.  I've noticed the unsettled plot mechanics and just assumed they were left to make room for more content.  We all knew DLC was coming so some things had to still be left to explain or explore.  

The rest of what you're saying is either marginal or complete nonsense.  Like I said, more constructive and less emotional is required. 

Wait...
let me get this straight.
You firmly believe that they left the end unfinished on purpose for more DLC?
And you are not only FINE with that but you are mad at anyone who isn't?
This is the kind of nickle and diming that I hate Capcom for why should i pay more for something that should've been in there in the first place?

I'm not mad at anyone.  All DLC is just supplemental content that easily could've been included in the original game.  Doesn't mean the game's bad, just that it's expensive.  

The game is expensive when I buy it.  They don't need to nickle and dime us to make it more expensive.
A game that they deliberatly leave out a proper ending just to get more money out of me is a game I'm done with.
No way in hell am I paying for such blatant greed and it boggles my mind that people like you are so quick to defend it.  The game is bad because DLC I will never buy isn't going to fix the terribad ending it just makes the game even worse.

I'm fine with DLC because in the end we'll get a lot more story and game out of it.  Then again I'm not poor.  :happy:

If they had forced it all into the ending all the answers would be short, boring and decidedly un-epic.  Either we get it all cheap or we get it all in quality over time.  ME3 in it's entirety was well worth the $60 price tag.  Everything up to the ending was fantastic and what the ending left us with is a lot of potential new content.  

Modifié par Gigamantis, 25 mars 2012 - 09:29 .

[Rockworm503]

Gigamantis wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...



3.) DLC is tearing pages out of the middle and/or end of the book and reselling them.  Whether you like that concept or not that's what DLC is in every game you've ever played.  

Not true in the slightest.
Grand Theft Auto had full complete storys that complimented the original felt like full fledged expansion packs.
Fallout New Vegas each ad new areas and interesting storys and characters that expand the universe.
Red Dead Redemption's DLC is a complete new game where the wild west is overrun by zombies oh yeah you can totally tell these were cut out of the main game to nickle and dime us .

You are claiming that we should be fine with the real ending being taken out and being charged for it because DLC exists.
The fact that you can't tell the difference says a lot about you really.

Sandbox games are different.  Just because one DLC is a complete aside and the other only wants to deal with main story content doesn't mean they're not just attempts to nickel and dime you.  Both fallout games and skyrim are mostly side quests and non-main story content. 

That is a pathetic excuse.
Lair of the Shadow Broker is one of the best DLC I've ever played.  You honestly telling me they kept that out of the game on purpose and sat on it for over a year then decided to release it?
Do you even pay attention to what your typing?

[Tocquevillain]

Wynteryth wrote...

Actually, the butterfly effect says otherwise.  

However, to truly answer your question, people would have to go into spoilers.  Which can't be done here. 

Yes, in nature. Not in a videogame that has a scripted ending in a
scripted story. You're looking for a natural phenomenon in an artificial
construct.

Modifié par Tocquevillain, 25 mars 2012 - 09:29 .

[Alexraptor1]

Seriously people, stop feeding the troll!

[TheJiveDJ]

@Gigamantis So basically, whenever you can't refute someone point you call them emotional? Uh huh.

[Nepp]

DLC is the ruination of games. Period.

Go back to the days of actual content loaded expansion packs Superior to DLC, but doesn't make as much as DLC's that idiots gobble up.

[Gigamantis]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...



3.) DLC is tearing pages out of the middle and/or end of the book and reselling them.  Whether you like that concept or not that's what DLC is in every game you've ever played.  

Not true in the slightest.
Grand Theft Auto had full complete storys that complimented the original felt like full fledged expansion packs.
Fallout New Vegas each ad new areas and interesting storys and characters that expand the universe.
Red Dead Redemption's DLC is a complete new game where the wild west is overrun by zombies oh yeah you can totally tell these were cut out of the main game to nickle and dime us .

You are claiming that we should be fine with the real ending being taken out and being charged for it because DLC exists.
The fact that you can't tell the difference says a lot about you really.

Sandbox games are different.  Just because one DLC is a complete aside and the other only wants to deal with main story content doesn't mean they're not just attempts to nickel and dime you.  Both fallout games and skyrim are mostly side quests and non-main story content. 

That is a pathetic excuse.
Lair of the Shadow Broker is one of the best DLC I've ever played.  You honestly telling me they kept that out of the game on purpose and sat on it for over a year then decided to release it?
Do you even pay attention to what your typing?

Nope, I'm saying that could've easily been in ME2 though.  There was no reason for them to just hint at him during ME2 then sell you this story about it a year later.  That could've easily been in the original game.  No excuse for that.  Nickel and diming us. 

Modifié par Gigamantis, 25 mars 2012 - 09:32 .

[Rockworm503]

Gigamantis wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...



3.) DLC is tearing pages out of the middle and/or end of the book and reselling them.  Whether you like that concept or not that's what DLC is in every game you've ever played.  

Not true in the slightest.
Grand Theft Auto had full complete storys that complimented the original felt like full fledged expansion packs.
Fallout New Vegas each ad new areas and interesting storys and characters that expand the universe.
Red Dead Redemption's DLC is a complete new game where the wild west is overrun by zombies oh yeah you can totally tell these were cut out of the main game to nickle and dime us .

You are claiming that we should be fine with the real ending being taken out and being charged for it because DLC exists.
The fact that you can't tell the difference says a lot about you really.

Sandbox games are different.  Just because one DLC is a complete aside and the other only wants to deal with main story content doesn't mean they're not just attempts to nickel and dime you.  Both fallout games and skyrim are mostly side quests and non-main story content. 

That is a pathetic excuse.
Lair of the Shadow Broker is one of the best DLC I've ever played.  You honestly telling me they kept that out of the game on purpose and sat on it for over a year then decided to release it?
Do you even pay attention to what your typing?

Nope, I'm saying that could've easily been in ME2 though.  There was no reason for them to just hint at him during ME2 then sell you this story about it a year later.  That could've easily been in the original game.  No excuse for that.  Nickel and diming us. 

Ok I'm done here.
Its obvious you aren't here to refute our points but to say your right and we're wrong no matter what we said.
i still have that family guy clip I can use it again because it seems very relevent here.
Your entire idea is the simple fact that some DLC is blatant ripoffs.
So DLC exists.
Some DLC is ripping us off.
Therefore all DLC exist to rip us off .
Basicallly there is no difference to a quality DLC that really gives us our moneys worth and a character that was taken out but still on the disc.

Why am I taking you seriously?

[Gigamantis]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...



3.) DLC is tearing pages out of the middle and/or end of the book and reselling them.  Whether you like that concept or not that's what DLC is in every game you've ever played.  

Not true in the slightest.
Grand Theft Auto had full complete storys that complimented the original felt like full fledged expansion packs.
Fallout New Vegas each ad new areas and interesting storys and characters that expand the universe.
Red Dead Redemption's DLC is a complete new game where the wild west is overrun by zombies oh yeah you can totally tell these were cut out of the main game to nickle and dime us .

You are claiming that we should be fine with the real ending being taken out and being charged for it because DLC exists.
The fact that you can't tell the difference says a lot about you really.

Sandbox games are different.  Just because one DLC is a complete aside and the other only wants to deal with main story content doesn't mean they're not just attempts to nickel and dime you.  Both fallout games and skyrim are mostly side quests and non-main story content. 

That is a pathetic excuse.
Lair of the Shadow Broker is one of the best DLC I've ever played.  You honestly telling me they kept that out of the game on purpose and sat on it for over a year then decided to release it?
Do you even pay attention to what your typing?

Nope, I'm saying that could've easily been in ME2 though.  There was no reason for them to just hint at him during ME2 then sell you this story about it a year later.  That could've easily been in the original game.  No excuse for that.  Nickel and diming us. 

Ok I'm done here.
Its obvious you aren't here to refute our points but to say your right and we're wrong no matter what we said.
i still have that family guy clip I can use it again because it seems very relevent here.
Your entire idea is the simple fact that some DLC is blatant ripoffs.
So DLC exists.
Some DLC is ripping us off.
Therefore all DLC exist to rip us off .
Basicallly there is no difference to a quality DLC that really gives us our moneys worth and a character that was taken out but still on the disc.

Why am I taking you seriously?

I am refuting your points.  You're just getting upset when you can't refute back. 

Leaving plot elements open-ended so they can provide us with great stories around them, that are worth our money, isn't bad DLC.  You just assume it's worse than all other types of DLC because you're a silly, angry man. 

Why don't you wait and see this new DLC before you decide it's crap that's not worth anything, mmkay? 

[jtrook]

anorling wrote...

Ok! I'll be damned but I admit. I really wanted the game to end like this:


Goddamnit! That doesn't make me a bad person.
What have the world come to when we can't even be allowed to find a little happiness in the fiction we flee to to get away from all the evil, tragedy and despair that surrounds us in the real world?!
Give me my happy ending. I deserve it and so does the story itself!

Buzzweiser FOR EVERYONE (I bet nobody gets that pun)

Modifié par jtrook, 25 mars 2012 - 09:39 .

[zingro]

meh your better off banging ya head against a wall with threads like this.

Modifié par zingro, 25 mars 2012 - 09:39 .

[Nepp]

Gigamantis wrote...

I am refuting your points.  You're just getting upset when you can't refute back. 

Leaving plot elements open-ended so they can provide us with great stories around them, that are worth our money, isn't bad DLC.  You just assume it's worse than all other types of DLC because you're a silly, angry man. 

Why don't you wait and see this new DLC before you decide it's crap that's not worth anything, mmkay? 

Taking content out of a game, selling an incomplete game, and charging for the removed content (that was still on the disc) is blatant rip-off cash grab.

DLC's are the bane of games. They exists for morons to gobble up and make a "$60" game cost well over $100.

Oh, you were disproved several times.

Modifié par Nepp, 25 mars 2012 - 09:42 .

[Salis777]

zingro wrote...

meh your better off banging ya head against a wall with threads like this.

Yeah, 75% of them are just Gigamantis or Father_Jerusalem spamming.  Usually best to avoid them.

[Rockworm503]

Gigamantis wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...



3.) DLC is tearing pages out of the middle and/or end of the book and reselling them.  Whether you like that concept or not that's what DLC is in every game you've ever played.  

Not true in the slightest.
Grand Theft Auto had full complete storys that complimented the original felt like full fledged expansion packs.
Fallout New Vegas each ad new areas and interesting storys and characters that expand the universe.
Red Dead Redemption's DLC is a complete new game where the wild west is overrun by zombies oh yeah you can totally tell these were cut out of the main game to nickle and dime us .

You are claiming that we should be fine with the real ending being taken out and being charged for it because DLC exists.
The fact that you can't tell the difference says a lot about you really.

Sandbox games are different.  Just because one DLC is a complete aside and the other only wants to deal with main story content doesn't mean they're not just attempts to nickel and dime you.  Both fallout games and skyrim are mostly side quests and non-main story content. 

That is a pathetic excuse.
Lair of the Shadow Broker is one of the best DLC I've ever played.  You honestly telling me they kept that out of the game on purpose and sat on it for over a year then decided to release it?
Do you even pay attention to what your typing?

Nope, I'm saying that could've easily been in ME2 though.  There was no reason for them to just hint at him during ME2 then sell you this story about it a year later.  That could've easily been in the original game.  No excuse for that.  Nickel and diming us. 

Ok I'm done here.
Its obvious you aren't here to refute our points but to say your right and we're wrong no matter what we said.
i still have that family guy clip I can use it again because it seems very relevent here.
Your entire idea is the simple fact that some DLC is blatant ripoffs.
So DLC exists.
Some DLC is ripping us off.
Therefore all DLC exist to rip us off .
Basicallly there is no difference to a quality DLC that really gives us our moneys worth and a character that was taken out but still on the disc.

Why am I taking you seriously?

I am refuting your points.  You're just getting upset when you can't refute back. 

Leaving plot elements open-ended so they can provide us with great stories around them, that are worth our money, isn't bad DLC.  You just assume it's worse than all other types of DLC because you're a silly, angry man. 

Why don't you wait and see this new DLC before you decide it's crap that's not worth anything, mmkay? 

You have refuted nothing.
You have said nothing of value yet I keep responding to you.
See the thing is I know the difference between quality DLC and nickle and diming.
Leaving the ending open for more DLC is obvious Nickle and diming.  How can it not be?
I wont be nickle and dimed anymore being rich or poor has nothing to do with it.  The line is set in the sand and i will not be made a fool by any game company.   I made the biggest mistake for buying Javik's DLC especially when he's already on the damn disk.
Bioware is quickly becoming another Capcom and I have every reason in the world to avoid Capcom.

Also its funny how I'm upset.  You can tell how?

[Icinix]

 ...and heres why it isn't.

BioWare casts 'Space Magic' 

Star Child approves +10000