880 réponses à ce sujet

[Ruined Requiem]

Very well said Cheez. I hope BW gives this a read, for it says what a lot of us have been trying to.

[WizenSlinky0]

wizardryforever wrote...
The only thing the ending ruined for me was the ending.

Redundancy detected in sector three. Beginning containment operations in areas in need of containment operations. Virus spreading, systems corrupted on all corrupted channels.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 27 mars 2012 - 04:13 .

[Hunter of Legends]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Guys, we were doing really well with this thread so far, so let's not fight. Hunter, I agree with Wizen: Never sit down, never shut up, never just let the people on top walk all over you.

See, you didn't read what I said.

I said cease the disorganized response and post mroe organized and coherent thoughts.

Wild inane arguing and disorganized complaints is why Bungie fell apart.

I respect your concerns but I still can't say I agree. Sometimes, it's the uniqueness and individuality of the responses that give them weight. Since we're here already I'll use Cheez's. The mixed in personal reactions and experiences give the arguments a human characteristic rather than just a bullet pointed list of complaints.

So yes, while a certain level of organization is good and healthy, it can also be stiffling and too rigid. Especially when you're dealing with a corporation...no matter how full of humans (and one cupcake monster), I believe it is better to appeal to the human characteristics than the corporate ones. By sharing unique experiences you can often make people remember why they do what they do in the first place, for better or worse in terms of the 'cause'.

Basically, yes just wild arguing will get nobody anywhere. Debate however is a very healthy way of exchanging ideas, information, and opinions. But debates don't always have to be organized or with a single coherent message. They can have an overarching theme. The theme here? We'd really like to pretty please ask for a revised ending, cherry on top of the cupcake and all.

I feel such varied and wild response will only make it seem like any attempt by Bioware to ammend the endings and fix the communities complaints will be daunting and impossible to fix.

[WizenSlinky0]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

I feel such varied and wild response will only make it seem like any attempt by Bioware to ammend the endings and fix the communities complaints will be daunting and impossible to fix.

They are impossible to "fix" because they are not broken. They are just unsatisfying and prone to error. Bioware will never, ever be able to please everybody. However by giving a varied response from a broad range of areas it gives Bioware more information to work with that they might not otherwise get if people all just said "I agree with the points that guy over there listed".

It's not just "what we find wrong" but "why we find it wrong". Where we're coming from as individuals, I'd say, is as impotartant as what we believe the problems are. But yes, regardless of what they do, they will ****** somebody off. However, they have the unique opportunity to make the decision to satisfy a greater portion of their fans than they did the first time. We'll see if they take it.

Personal opinion. But yeah.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 27 mars 2012 - 04:16 .

[Hunter of Legends]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

I feel such varied and wild response will only make it seem like any attempt by Bioware to ammend the endings and fix the communities complaints will be daunting and impossible to fix.

They are impossible to "fix" because they are not broken. They are just unsatisfying. Bioware will never, ever be able to please everybody. However by giving a varied response from a broad range of areas it gives Bioware more information to work with that they might not otherwise get if people all just said "I agree with the points that guy over there listed".

It's not just "what we find wrong" but "why we find it wrong". Where we're coming from as individuals, I'd say, is as impotartant as what we believe the problems are. But yes, regardless of what they do, they will ****** somebody off. However, they have the unique opportunity to make the decision to satisfy a greater portion of their fans than they did the first time. We'll see if they take it.

Personal opinion. But yeah.

I disagree simply because said tactic was used by the Bungie communties to try and "fix" Halo.

It failed horribly.

[Jaulen]

"So after two mindblowing games in a row (and some damn fine DLC), I really looked forward to ME3, more so than getting my bachelor’s degree. Pathetic nerd alert, amirite? And for the most part, the final chapter in the trilogy met my expectations. The gameplay was better than ever, the environments more awe-inspiring, the characters more lifelike and lovable (Javik is my new favorite, even though he is the galaxy’s biggest jackass). Hell, even multiplayer was a blast, and I hated the idea of it when it was first leaked. I laughed, I cried, I had a goddamn blast…

… Until the last five minutes."

This I agree with 100%.

[CARL_DF90]

jreezy wrote...

So much for that solidarity. Maybe next time AdmiralCheez vas BSN

Hey now. It's not over yet. The vast majority of this thread is united and agrees.

[wizardryforever]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
The only thing the ending ruined for me was the ending.

Redundancy detected in sector three. Beginning containment operations in areas in need of containment operations. Virus spreading, systems corrupted on all corrupted channels.

It's not quite as redundant as it sounds.  I simply have a tired brain and couldn't articulate it better.  The only thing the ending ruined for me was the final act of the game (ie, the last mission).

[Hunter of Legends]

jreezy wrote...

So much for that solidarity. Maybe next time AdmiralCheez vas BSN

Perhaps this will work.


But I don't think it will.

[100k]

While I appreciate your comments Cheez, I personally have to come in here.

No. Bioware, adding a new ending won't fix Mass Effect 3. Nothing short of an entire rewrite of the third game will fix Mass Effect 3.

Was it a well constructed game with beautiful aesthetics, great voice acting, and fast paced game play? Yes.

Was it a Mass Effect game? No.

Auto-dialogue strips the player of their ability to make what ME1 and ME2 got right: meaningful choices.

MP, as excellent as it was, strips down room on a disk for other aspects of the SP -- NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. Yes, another dev team might have worked on the MP, but it doesn't change the fact that it still must take up a large amount of space on the disk -- space that could (and should) go to the story aspects of the game.

The fact that many people HAVE to play the MP to get the ideal (*scoffs*) ending is a LIE on your part as a developer, and a big SCREW YOU to people with limited internet access. How do you address these people?

Retcons show how a clumsy writer gets themselves out of a corner either too complex, or too uninteresting to that writer. Some retcons can be easily explained, like the protheans actually being a multispecies'd group -- and modern (future) researchers just being wrong about them. But other retcons, like a moving Citadel, a Council that treats Shepard differently, or a secret terrorist organization comprised of 150 agents suddenly having military strength to suppress a space station of millions of people, is just insulting.

Nonsensical expainations like the Star Child and his motives are paper thin, and fans will see through them. Similarly, contradictions, like the Reapers wanting to wipe out organic life to stop synthetic life from wiping out organic life are incredibly foolish. Why then would the Reapers upload a code that causes ALL geth to be stronger? In fact, how is it that geth are being indoctrinated at all? In ME2 there was a HUGE section of the game in which Legion explains that the geth aren't indoctrinated, a faction of geth simply worships the reapers.

And the list goes on and on.

Ultimately this was a dissapointing conclusion to a series that has always been about player choice.

When you strip the player of import options and CC imports, you are stripping them of the Shepard that they have spent years personalizing.

When you strip the player of the control of their player character by dumping auto-dialogue in place of a three pronged dialogue wheel, you are stripping them of the Shepard that they have spent years personalizing.

When you don't offer choices that matter, and result in different outcomes, be it within an ending, or even just a mission, you are stripping them of the Shepard they have spent years personalizing.

When you retcon your own universe so that your new game is "fresh" and "easy to jump into" for the sake of new players as opposed to long time devoted players (who make up a HUGE amount of your consumer base, and are actually willing to invest the time to look into the history and lore of your universe) you are stripping your own universe and trivializing it's important aspects.

When you create a game that is too linear so that casual players can find an easier route from start to finish, you are stripping your fans (the guys who made you rich) of the game play experience they've come to expect from you.

When you create contradictions and nonsensical moments that leave people scratching their heads as to "why" everything happened the way it did, you are stripping players of the Shepard they spent years personalizing, your audience of the choices that they made throughout the game, your universe of its own authenticity, and your fan base of respect -- because it shows that you don't respect them or their inquiries.

When you lie to your fans throughout the development process to "trick" them into buying your game, you are stripping them of their trust (or lets talk in terms EA can understand: "money") in you.

And I ask you Bioware, was it worth it?

Modifié par 100k, 27 mars 2012 - 04:22 .

[MrPuschel]

I think it can support that. Over all great Triology with some minor negative points. But the ending is that what you remember, makes it hard to keep it in mind with a positive attitude.

[REDSQUARE82]

OP said it better than I ever could. I agree with the whole post. Bravo!

[WizenSlinky0]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

I disagree simply because said tactic was used by the Bungie communties to try and "fix" Halo.

It failed horribly.

Perhaps. I wouldn't know as I never cared much for Halo. However, that is a small sample size and not indicitive of inherently destructive tendencies. On top of that it really comes down to how people respond/interact amongst the why's and the how's.

It all comes down to the reactions. Not the decisions, not the tactics, and certainly not the reasons. And reactions differ wildly from person to person, group to group, etc.

You may indeed be right but I don't think anybody should regret 'holding the line' to use the movements speak. If they believe strongly in the franchise then I think it's important not to give up on that regardless of the consequences. We can't always predict what will happen but we can hold fast to our beliefs (in a reasonable manner) and fight for

wizardryforever wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
The only thing the ending ruined for me was the ending.

Redundancy
detected in sector three. Beginning containment operations in areas in
need of containment operations. Virus spreading, systems corrupted on
all corrupted channels.

It's not quite as redundant
as it sounds.  I simply have a tired brain and couldn't articulate it
better.  The only thing the ending ruined for me was the final act of
the game (ie, the last mission).

Worry not fair traveler. I understood your meaning. Just me being silly. I do hope I have not offended you, unless your offense would be expressed through cupcakes.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 27 mars 2012 - 04:23 .

[Hunter of Legends]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...


You may indeed be right but I don't think anybody should regret 'holding the line' to use the movements speak. If they believe strongly in the franchise then I think it's important not to give up on that regardless of the consequences. We can't always predict what will happen but we can hold fast to our beliefs (in a reasonable manner) and fight for

I would never want you to not stand up for what you believe in.

I only hope Bioware still remembers what they are and still can be.

Modifié par Hunter of Legends, 27 mars 2012 - 04:29 .

[Hunter of Legends]

100k wrote...

Ultimately this was a dissapointing conclusion to a series that has always been about player choice.

Mass Effect 3 is certainly still about that.

[AlanC9]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...
It's not just "what we find wrong" but "why we find it wrong". Where we're coming from as individuals, I'd say, is as impotartant as what we believe the problems are. But yes, regardless of what they do, they will ****** somebody off. However, they have the unique opportunity to make the decision to satisfy a greater portion of their fans than they did the first time. We'll see if they take it.

Note that even a change that does satisfy a greater portion of the fans might nevertheless leave some fans worse off. I'm halfway resigned to having a happy ending crammed down my throat.

[AlanC9]

100k wrote...

When you create a game that is too linear so that casual players can find an easier route from start to finish, you are stripping your fans (the guys who made you rich) of the game play experience they've come to expect from you.

Actually, I've wanted more linear games from Bio for years.

I only bring this up because we need to realize that there's no such thing as "fans." There are individual fans with individual tastes. Maybe the majority of fans --depending on you you define "fan" really agree about most things. They dont' agree about everything.

[Hunter of Legends]

AlanC9 wrote...

100k wrote...

When you create a game that is too linear so that casual players can find an easier route from start to finish, you are stripping your fans (the guys who made you rich) of the game play experience they've come to expect from you.

Actually, I've wanted more linear games from Bio for years.

I only bring this up because we need to realize that there's no such thing as "fans." There are individual fans with individual tastes. Maybe the majority of fans --depending on you you define "fan" really agree about most things. They dont' agree about everything.

I think  Bioware would be better off doing linear yet lengthy narratives.

[Cheesy Blue]

This thread man.... This thread.

[WizenSlinky0]

*MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*

...Fyi, I really hate when people post these kinds of things in the no spoiler sections because I feel BAD for responding to inaccuracies. Blah.

100k wrote...
Auto-dialogue strips the player of their ability to make what ME1 and ME2 got right: meaningful choices.

See, as much as I love the ability to make meaningful choices I find your defense fairly weak. I'd say that the choice structure is a fundamental point of the Mass Effect Franchise and I am somewhat sad to see it trimmed so much. However, it was only one part of a whole.

At least for me the driving force of the mass effect franchise was the characters, the world, and the atmosphere. All of these, for most of ME3, were handled in a very good manner in most cases.

I'd say that while unfortunate to lose, the majority of our "meaningful choices" that were taken from us were the smaller and rather unmeaningful choices that we had come to love in a sense. The big, meaningful ones are still there.

MP, as excellent as it was, strips down room on a disk for other aspects of the SP -- NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. Yes, another dev team might have worked on the MP, but it doesn't change the fact that it still must take up a large amount of space on the disk -- space that could (and should) go to the story aspects of the game.

The fact that many people HAVE to play the MP to get the ideal (*scoffs*) ending is a LIE on your part as a developer, and a big SCREW YOU to people with limited internet access. How do you address these people?

For the 360 at least the game took up two discs already. So I'd hardly say they were limited by disc size as they would not have been the first developer to have a 3+ game disc had they needed it. It's debatable whether or not they should or shouldn't have done multiplayer. I'd probably agree they should have waited to try it in another game.

However, I felt the experience (minus the ending) did not reflect the kind of game that appears to have been detracted from for the sake of multiplayer. This is, unfortunately, my subjective experience much like yours.

I will not comment on it being required for the ending as I'm hearing mixed opinions on whether that is true or not. And I don't feel like doing the math or experiments myself.

Retcons show how a clumsy writer gets themselves out of a corner either too complex, or too uninteresting to that writer. Some retcons can be easily explained, like the protheans actually being a multispecies'd group -- and modern (future) researchers just being wrong about them. But other retcons, like a moving Citadel, a Council that treats Shepard differently, or a secret terrorist organization comprised of 150 agents suddenly having military strength to suppress a space station of millions of people, is just insulting.

Nonsensical expainations like the Star Child and his motives are paper thin, and fans will see through them. Similarly, contradictions, like the Reapers wanting to wipe out organic life to stop synthetic life from wiping out organic life are incredibly foolish. Why then would the Reapers upload a code that causes ALL geth to be stronger? In fact, how is it that geth are being indoctrinated at all? In ME2 there was a HUGE section of the game in which Legion explains that the geth aren't indoctrinated, a faction of geth simply worships the reapers.

And the list goes on and on.

Some of these arguments...I'm not quite sure if you really believe them, especially when none of them are actual retcons.

A retcon is going against known fact. Most of what they did just constitutes adding additional information where there wasn't any. I've got to say retcon is probably the most misused term in the english dictionary.

Protheans had such little knowledge left from their time there was nothing wrong with the protheans being a collection of species under one "Prothean Empire". Even in the current Mass Effect universe there's similar things, like the Hanar and the Drell, which are so entertwined into eachothers societies that they are considered the Hanar. The drell is just a subspecies within the hanar at this point.

The citadel was never said to be unable to be moved. How could it be a retcon? It is a large piece of metal. Large pieces of metal, in a weightless enviroment, are not difficult to move. Especially if you're as large as the reapers. The current races don't understand it enough to risk moving it. It's also located in a strategic position and is at the almost center of the relay network. 

But they never said the citadel moves under its own power to get to earth.

I don't even understand where you're taking the Council argument but Cerberus is explained. They are utilizing reverse engineered reaper tech, kidnapping civillians from human colonies, and implanting the tech to quickly create soldiers. They are also primarily shown to utilize fighters and small veicles underscoring their status as a relatively "small" power.

Omega was not a highly defensible location. The fueds make it impossible for any one power to "fortify" it as most equipment goes to fighting eachother. On top of that TIM primarily uses deception to take Omega.

Furthermore, the starchild is entirely encased within the ending leaving your "rewrite" belief unwarrented. It is already a consideration contained within the current dissastisfaction.

The Geth TURNED to the reapers. They purposely allied with them to SAVE THEMSELVES. By allowing the Geth to reach full AI status through the use of their code they could guarentee full control over them. IE. no longer a threat to the continued existance of organics. They are not indoctrinated. They were forced into a bad position and made a bargin with the devil, so to speak.

I won't respond to the rest. It is mostly subjective and not something I can debate.  I sympathize with your frustration. However, retcon most of their universe they did not. There were QUITE a few potholes but very little to no retcons in ME3.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 27 mars 2012 - 04:50 .

[AresXX7]

Great post Cheez !
As usual, you've captured the mood so very eloquently.

I tip my hat to you good madam.

[StabGuy]

Best written constructive criticism ever. You should become the ambassador for every ME fan.

[WizenSlinky0]

AlanC9 wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...
It's not just "what we find wrong" but "why we find it wrong". Where we're coming from as individuals, I'd say, is as impotartant as what we believe the problems are. But yes, regardless of what they do, they will ****** somebody off. However, they have the unique opportunity to make the decision to satisfy a greater portion of their fans than they did the first time. We'll see if they take it.

Note that even a change that does satisfy a greater portion of the fans might nevertheless leave some fans worse off. I'm halfway resigned to having a happy ending crammed down my throat.

I highly doubt the current endings will not still be there in their original or semi-original form. I'm sorry if anything Bioware does makes things worse for you. I don't really care if it's a happy end or not. My only desire is for one that is satisfying.

I'm hoping any changes are packaged stand-alone without additional extras. Makes it easier for people who read-up on it not to get it if it's going to interfer with their own satisfaction or make things worse on them.

[The Interloper]

100k wrote...
 adding a new ending won't fix Mass Effect 3. Nothing short of an entire rewrite of the third game will fix Mass Effect 3.
 

I agree rest of the game was not perfect, and I can see why you'd be put off by the lack of dialogue choices and such and that's your opinion and that's fine, but frankly...I think the situation has fallen far past such details, don' tyou? Be it justly or unjustly, they've been completely and utterly eclipsed in the eyes of so many to such a point where I could keep going and run out of size adjectives, and nothing it going to change that.

Also, it's not practical to demand a change for the entire game, as much as I would like a third dialogue option added by DLC. Now the ending? That's feasable.

I know you're just giving your two cents, but so am I.