268 réponses à ce sujet

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

Fenderbaum wrote...

On a more important note, all I said above works in the real world, which we are not in.  You did not BUY anything (unless you went retail, in which case you bought a case, a shiny disc, a bit of paper etc etc).

Video games are digital media...the same as films, music etc etc.  You bought and own nothing, all you did was pay for the right to use said media.

People really need to learn that.

If you paid $20 expecting to get Toy Story and you instead got the Bollywood version of Pulp Fiction you didn't get what you paid for.

You may need to read up on the law.

In this case it is really not the same thing though

Its very close though... EULA or ney, bait-and-switch and deceptive marketing is still the same (actually it is worse if you want to declare games are leased property and not a "crative product" lol).  This is exactly why my company's intellectual property does not come with EULA's or royalities, it is simple, well-written terms of service and terms of sale.  Else, when the chite hits the fan, you can be held to stupid standards should a judge somewhere rule that "EULA emplies leased property".

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 06:25 .

[sydranark]

Arcian wrote...

leewells wrote...

From what I have gathered and from what it seems, BioWare advertised a game to the community as the "Epic conclusion to the Mass Effect trillogy" (ref).  It was also advertised as "retake Earth" (ref).  Instead, we are presented with a dream-state ending that does not appeal to the advertisements in which the ending is left without resolution or conclusion and without retaking earth.  It was announced that they were going to be adding DLC to the "post ending" sequences (ref) presumably to be after Shep wakes up from the indoc attempt (see the indoctrination theories in this forum or this if you need help understanding).

This is a f***ing retarded thing to presume, because the IDT is fanmade and has been repeatedly debunked by both fans and BioWare devs.

1) There's sufficient evidence that he was indoctrinated. I'm not going to argue with you about it right now because I'm frankly tired of arguing about it with people who don't get it. You want evidence, watch the youtube videos. If you have and still think it's fake, then fine. But the images they included throughout the game weren't done for no reason. 

2) Dubunked by BioWare devs? Proof of this or gtfo. =/

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

Broken Steel offered a "new" ending possiblity, it did not offer more cotnent to or after the ending sequence or void any part of the story line.   Selling a book as Z-a or Z-b is fine, as Brokensteel did.  Should brokenstell had stated that everything from the water facility's entry was a "dream" until it exploded and tout the advertising phrase "Conclusion to..." it WOULD have very finately been falsely advertised at best, and a strong bas case.

That's an alternate ending... no laws forbid selling that... you just pick the one you prefer...

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Broken Steel offered a "new" ending possiblity, it did not offer more cotnent to or after the ending sequence or void any part of the story line.   Selling a book as Z-a or Z-b is fine, as Brokensteel did.  Should brokenstell had stated that everything from the water facility's entry was a "dream" until it exploded and tout the advertising phrase "Conclusion to..." it WOULD have very finately been falsely advertised at best, and a strong bas case.

That's an alternate ending... no laws forbid selling that... you just pick the one you prefer...

An alternate ending is not the same as a continuation of the story-line -- these are two entirely seperate things.

Alternate endings can be played inside the story line or along-side of it as an add-on.

Continuation of the story line means the main game's "real" ending depends upon the DLC making the total price the game advertised purpose (to conclude the story) HIGHER than advertised.  No legal minds here will argue this, I don't know why YOU are.  Sure, they could have a ME4 as DLC, IF they didn't advertise ME3 as "the epic conclusion to the Mass Effect series" meaning ME3 is fini! (this is what you PAID for why you're not upset that you won't get this is beyond me)

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 06:29 .

[sydranark]

leewells wrote...

sydranark wrote...

@OP

Wouldn't you require intent or proof that they purposefully tricked consumers in to buying a load of garbage?
<snipped the rest>

I was involved (no I was not the defendant ) in a dishonored check case once where the law here stated that the charge was "willfully and knowingly" wrote a bad check.  The case would have been dismissed were it one check that was dishonored, however being the person had already done it before and wrote 3 with my company, he was found guilty.  This is called assumed evidence and it would be the same in any court where it can simply be proven that they did falsely advertise the game (which is fact) by outright lies.  The fact we were told that it could be possible to live happly ever after and that there was no "off switch" for the reapers makes this a moot point.

<snipped>

But it's not like BW released the game several times. Wouldn't this count as the "first time?" Granted, they sold a buttload of copies, but it was all in one ongoing stretch. It's not like they promised a happy ending and killable reapers over and over again, failing to do so each time. 

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Broken Steel offered a "new" ending possiblity, it did not offer more cotnent to or after the ending sequence or void any part of the story line.   Selling a book as Z-a or Z-b is fine, as Brokensteel did.  Should brokenstell had stated that everything from the water facility's entry was a "dream" until it exploded and tout the advertising phrase "Conclusion to..." it WOULD have very finately been falsely advertised at best, and a strong bas case.

That's an alternate ending... no laws forbid selling that... you just pick the one you prefer...

An alternate ending is not the same as a continuation of the story-line -- these are two entirely seperate things.

Alternate endings can be played inside the story line or along-side of it as an add-on.

Continuation of the story line means the main game's "real" ending depends upon the DLC making the total price the game advertised purpose (to conclude the story) HIGHER than advertised.  No legal minds here will argue this, I don't know why YOU are. 

Well, then back to broken steel that you defend that continues the storyline.
Plus, for the price being higher than advertised, same could go for every DLC available on the market.

And you should know that a legal mind on a case will not back down and make concessions, it's even worse when they believe they are right. Sadly for you, at the moment I also believe I am right and I can hold on pretty hard in those cases don't worry.

Modifié par Nostradamoose, 03 avril 2012 - 06:37 .

[leewells]

sydranark wrote...

leewells wrote...

sydranark wrote...

@OP

Wouldn't you require intent or proof that they purposefully tricked consumers in to buying a load of garbage?
<snipped the rest>

I was involved (no I was not the defendant ) in a dishonored check case once where the law here stated that the charge was "willfully and knowingly" wrote a bad check.  The case would have been dismissed were it one check that was dishonored, however being the person had already done it before and wrote 3 with my company, he was found guilty.  This is called assumed evidence and it would be the same in any court where it can simply be proven that they did falsely advertise the game (which is fact) by outright lies.  The fact we were told that it could be possible to live happly ever after and that there was no "off switch" for the reapers makes this a moot point.

<snipped>

But it's not like BW released the game several times. Wouldn't this count as the "first time?" Granted, they sold a buttload of copies, but it was all in one ongoing stretch. It's not like they promised a happy ending and killable reapers over and over again, failing to do so each time. 

You missed the point... To prove someone is a hibitual liar means you catch them in multiple lies, not multiple lies of multiple stories.  They could be lying about the same story on diffrent days to be a hibitual liar.  But to that point, I believe there are already some implications about StarWars so it is becoming a very neat pattern with BioWare.  In summary, there were a "nest" of lies that were spun off pre-release about the game that were never retraded, redacted, or appologies for.  This means that they are still sticking to their guns through other clueless consumers buying the game as promises of what to expect in the ME3 release -- what a surprise.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 06:38 .

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Broken Steel offered a "new" ending possiblity, it did not offer more cotnent to or after the ending sequence or void any part of the story line.   Selling a book as Z-a or Z-b is fine, as Brokensteel did.  Should brokenstell had stated that everything from the water facility's entry was a "dream" until it exploded and tout the advertising phrase "Conclusion to..." it WOULD have very finately been falsely advertised at best, and a strong bas case.

That's an alternate ending... no laws forbid selling that... you just pick the one you prefer...

An alternate ending is not the same as a continuation of the story-line -- these are two entirely seperate things.

Alternate endings can be played inside the story line or along-side of it as an add-on.

Continuation of the story line means the main game's "real" ending depends upon the DLC making the total price the game advertised purpose (to conclude the story) HIGHER than advertised.  No legal minds here will argue this, I don't know why YOU are. 

Well, then back to broken steel that you defend that continues the storyline.

How does the story line continue except you have an option to live?  No extra content beyond that is added to the game... Post-end content is not dependant upon the dlc either.  I don't get how in the world you are saying this is in any way comparable to a DLC that has the "REAL" conclusion, reaper death, and "retaking earth" in it which was PLAINLY advertised as being included in ME3.

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Broken Steel offered a "new" ending possiblity, it did not offer more cotnent to or after the ending sequence or void any part of the story line.   Selling a book as Z-a or Z-b is fine, as Brokensteel did.  Should brokenstell had stated that everything from the water facility's entry was a "dream" until it exploded and tout the advertising phrase "Conclusion to..." it WOULD have very finately been falsely advertised at best, and a strong bas case.

That's an alternate ending... no laws forbid selling that... you just pick the one you prefer...

An alternate ending is not the same as a continuation of the story-line -- these are two entirely seperate things.

Alternate endings can be played inside the story line or along-side of it as an add-on.

Continuation of the story line means the main game's "real" ending depends upon the DLC making the total price the game advertised purpose (to conclude the story) HIGHER than advertised.  No legal minds here will argue this, I don't know why YOU are. 

Well, then back to broken steel that you defend that continues the storyline.

How does the story line continue except you have an option to live?  No extra content beyond that is added to the game... Post-end content is not dependant upon the dlc either.  I don't get how in the world you are saying this is in any way comparable to a DLC that has the "REAL" conclusion, reaper death, and "retaking earth" in it which was PLAINLY advertised as being included in ME3.

Broken Steel : Changes ending, adds a  new chapter to the game. Becomes the De Facto "Real Ending" to Fallout 3. Fits the criteria.

But, as for the Retaking Earth and the Reaper Death, isn't that already in the game, this is what I really don't get in that logic. It's poorly implemented, I'll give you that, but it's still in there. Adding a retcon to a story to change it's ending in a paid DLC has been done before and shouldn't be considered deceitful unless it was planned from the beginning. The later which is simply and evidently NOT the case here.

I'm not saying it's ethical though, but it's not Illegal. Of course it should be free, but it simply would not be illegal for them to retcon the story and make us pay for it.

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Broken Steel offered a "new" ending possiblity, it did not offer more cotnent to or after the ending sequence or void any part of the story line.   Selling a book as Z-a or Z-b is fine, as Brokensteel did.  Should brokenstell had stated that everything from the water facility's entry was a "dream" until it exploded and tout the advertising phrase "Conclusion to..." it WOULD have very finately been falsely advertised at best, and a strong bas case.

That's an alternate ending... no laws forbid selling that... you just pick the one you prefer...

An alternate ending is not the same as a continuation of the story-line -- these are two entirely seperate things.

Alternate endings can be played inside the story line or along-side of it as an add-on.

Continuation of the story line means the main game's "real" ending depends upon the DLC making the total price the game advertised purpose (to conclude the story) HIGHER than advertised.  No legal minds here will argue this, I don't know why YOU are. 

Well, then back to broken steel that you defend that continues the storyline.

How does the story line continue except you have an option to live?  No extra content beyond that is added to the game... Post-end content is not dependant upon the dlc either.  I don't get how in the world you are saying this is in any way comparable to a DLC that has the "REAL" conclusion, reaper death, and "retaking earth" in it which was PLAINLY advertised as being included in ME3.

Broken Steel : Changes ending, adds a  new chapter to the game. Becomes the De Facto "Real Ending" to Fallout 3. Fits the criteria.

But, as for the Retaking Earth and the Reaper Death, isn't that already in the game, this is what I really don't get in that logic. It's poorly implemented, I'll give you that, but it's still in there. Adding a retcon to a story to change it's ending in a paid DLC has been done before and shouldn't be considered deceitful unless it was planned from the beginning. The later which is simply and evidently NOT the case here.

I'm not saying it's ethical though, but it's not Illegal. Of course it should be free, but it simply would not be illegal for them to retcon the story and make us pay for it.

It did not add ANYTHING post-ending, only an alternative to the ending where your character survived and alternatately you could go back and complete quests and expore where you had not done so already.  Yes, admittadly, it had a little "clean" up quest to go through and finish wiping out the conclave, but this had nothing to do with the canon, and was not advertised as being part of the main game beforehand.  The fatal error in ME3 is that the game was advertised before-hand as being the EPIC CONCLUSION TO THE SERIES.  Wherein if content is added that states the ending is a dream (which it is already precieved by a LOT of people to be) and that you wake up and then retake earth and finalize the series, THIS IS BAIT AND SWITCH because the "story" was obviously pre-written, advertised, and not sold as part of the advertised game.

Broken Steel: Junk content, alternate ending
ME3 "new" ending: Real "CONCLUSION TO THE ME SERIES" advertised with ME3 that never made it into ME3.

It should also be a dead giveaway that your final boss is Marauder Shields LOL.  This is about the most famous laughing stock of the internet right now.  (how many times were you told in the game "its never that easy"?)

No, it isn't part of the game (reaper death and stuff) because they made it obvious to most that it was not the "real" ending contrary to the advertsments.  In fact if you know anything about rendering, or how to check the files of the game, it becomes very apparent that the ending is a "dream".  The "glaucoma effect" is only used in the ending and in the dreams (to give the "dreamy, tunnel vision effect"), and assets used in the dream sequences were litterly decompiled and found to be used in the final sequences (foliage).  These along show that the devs made an attempt to say "hey peps, this is a dream!" however subtile it may have been, but more on fact, they also alerted people this was not the end and again, contrary to its advertsiments.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 06:57 .

[The Divine Avenger]

leewells wrote...

Fulgrim88 wrote...

Yeah, that's how it works with products.

For some reason, in the minds of most people, it's somehow different with Games, though.
Don't ask me why.

It's also funny how he'll say that in response to some of the more vague pre-release statements. There are vastly more misleading ones around. Casey's infamous ABC quote being chief among them

As long as they don't release any post-ending DLC (or "the real ending") they can always stick to their guns of "artistic integrity", but as soon as they attempt to make more profit by using this method, they cross a very illegal line in which they're currently encroaching upon now with the ending as it is with a significantly "less than advertised" game.

DLC is legal, just as long as the content wasn't "pulled out" of the game before it was sold.  When they start doing this, or advertising a full game that has to be purchased in pieces to achieve its advertised goal, it becomes illegal.

No theres a difference, at present they are boarderlining faulse advertising with an ending that they said would NOT be an A B or C type ending but it was. They said are choices would matter but they don't that in itself is faulse advertising, fan outrage on a smaller scale than this got Bethesta to change the ending to fallout 3. They would loose a lot less money by changing / adding  endings to the game than they would by simply leaving them as they are. At preasent they risk loosing a good portion of there core fanbase if they leave the endings as they are. If they let that happen then they would loose out on more money than they would by changing the ending's.

Before anyone say's no they won't there are less people bi***ing about the endings than what actually bought the game. Before anyone come's out with this then take into account that the people that are currently bi***ing about the endings are the hardcore fanbase. These people are the one's responcible for perchasing the merchendise such as the N7 hoodies action figures novals ect. These people are also the ones that buy DLc on day of release & pre order a year in advance to get the colleters edition. Without these people there is noone to buy the DLC to make it come down in price for those that wait for that too happen. Although these people may only make a small impact on the actual game sales there impact on the sale of DLC & mechandise would be extreame.

Even if they were to charge for new ending DLC NO ONE is forcing anyone to buy it, it is complete CHOICE, so how would it effect the people that like the endings it WON'T . No one said they had to buy it, just like the genesis DLC if you already owned no 1 then you did'nt need to buy it the same principle applys here. If you don't like the endings get the DLC if you do like them then don't get it, it's that simple.

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Broken Steel offered a "new" ending possiblity, it did not offer more cotnent to or after the ending sequence or void any part of the story line.   Selling a book as Z-a or Z-b is fine, as Brokensteel did.  Should brokenstell had stated that everything from the water facility's entry was a "dream" until it exploded and tout the advertising phrase "Conclusion to..." it WOULD have very finately been falsely advertised at best, and a strong bas case.

That's an alternate ending... no laws forbid selling that... you just pick the one you prefer...

An alternate ending is not the same as a continuation of the story-line -- these are two entirely seperate things.

Alternate endings can be played inside the story line or along-side of it as an add-on.

Continuation of the story line means the main game's "real" ending depends upon the DLC making the total price the game advertised purpose (to conclude the story) HIGHER than advertised.  No legal minds here will argue this, I don't know why YOU are. 

Well, then back to broken steel that you defend that continues the storyline.

How does the story line continue except you have an option to live?  No extra content beyond that is added to the game... Post-end content is not dependant upon the dlc either.  I don't get how in the world you are saying this is in any way comparable to a DLC that has the "REAL" conclusion, reaper death, and "retaking earth" in it which was PLAINLY advertised as being included in ME3.

Broken Steel : Changes ending, adds a  new chapter to the game. Becomes the De Facto "Real Ending" to Fallout 3. Fits the criteria.

But, as for the Retaking Earth and the Reaper Death, isn't that already in the game, this is what I really don't get in that logic. It's poorly implemented, I'll give you that, but it's still in there. Adding a retcon to a story to change it's ending in a paid DLC has been done before and shouldn't be considered deceitful unless it was planned from the beginning. The later which is simply and evidently NOT the case here.

I'm not saying it's ethical though, but it's not Illegal. Of course it should be free, but it simply would not be illegal for them to retcon the story and make us pay for it.

It did not add ANYTHING post-ending, only an alternative to the ending where your character survived and alternatately you could go back and complete quests and expore where you had not done so already.  Yes, admittadly, it had a little "clean" up quest to go through and finish wiping out the conclave, but this had nothing to do with the canon, and was not advertised as being part of the main game beforehand.  The fatal error in ME3 is that the game was advertised before-hand as being the EPIC CONCLUSION TO THE SERIES.  Wherein if content is added that states the ending is a dream (which it is already precieved by a LOT of people to be) and that you wake up and then retake earth and finalize the series, THIS IS BAIT AND SWITCH because the "story" was obviously pre-written, advertised, and not sold as part of the advertised game.

Broken Steel: Junk content, alternate ending
ME3 "new" ending: Real "CONCLUSION TO THE ME SERIES" advertised with ME3 that never made it into ME3.

It should also be a dead giveaway that your final boss is Marauder Shields LOL.  This is about the most famous laughing stock of the internet right now.

Well we have got a game that is quite complete and it has been stated in the app "final hours of Mass Effect 3" that the ending was the one that was planned. We even have the leaked contents as proof of all this. Anything else after this is simply alternate endings... This is the ending they planned all along for ME3, nothing you say can change that.

And please, don't start telling me that you are one of those taking the IT as fact. If so, I can barely do anything for you anymore. It remains a fan-made theory that has not been confirmed or infirmed by Bioware.
There's a huge difference between having planned this as a shrewd way to take your money, as opposed to create a DLC following a fan-made theory to ease off the outcry as an alternate ending while making you pay for it.
The first one is dubious practice, the 2nd one is Broken Steel.

And what the hell about Marauder Shields? They stated repeatedly they did not want a video-gamey feel and have a final "boss" battle. Mass Effect went for the movie feel and it shows quite well with the TIM "boss fight" at the end.

No, it isn't part of the game (reaper death and stuff) because they made it obvious to most that it was not the "real" ending contrary to the advertsments. In fact if you know anything about rendering, or how to check the files of the game, it becomes very apparent that the ending is a "dream". The "glaucoma effect" is only used in the ending and in the dreams (to give the "dreamy, tunnel vision effect"), and assets used in the dream sequences were litterly decompiled and found to be used in the final sequences (foliage). These along show that the devs made an attempt to say "hey peps, this is a dream!" however subtile it may have been, but more on fact, they also alerted people this was not the end and again, contrary to its advertsiments.

OK.... Glaucoma effect only comes by while you are litteraly dying and gravely injured... I think that's the effect researched here. They used the same for dreams for convenience, because hey, foggy dreams are artistic.

Assets: They simply reused them, So what?

And pleeeeease how have they alerted people it was not the real end? I tend to be sceptical about stuff like that.

What you see as clear truths and facts about the IT, I only see lazy writing and reused assets, nothing more, nothing less.

Anybody with a LEGAL mind would know that you have to distance yourself from the subject to be able to give advice. (perhaps this is too much in your face though to say it that way) You are clearly waaaay too close to be able to give a level-headed argumentation.

Modifié par Nostradamoose, 03 avril 2012 - 07:13 .

[ahandsomeshark]

People need to really, in a civil manner, express how this effects their future buying habits as consumers. Attacking and calling them liars won't get anything but PR spin. Just outright say I can't trust a company that does this and I am out.

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Broken Steel offered a "new" ending possiblity, it did not offer more cotnent to or after the ending sequence or void any part of the story line.   Selling a book as Z-a or Z-b is fine, as Brokensteel did.  Should brokenstell had stated that everything from the water facility's entry was a "dream" until it exploded and tout the advertising phrase "Conclusion to..." it WOULD have very finately been falsely advertised at best, and a strong bas case.

That's an alternate ending... no laws forbid selling that... you just pick the one you prefer...

An alternate ending is not the same as a continuation of the story-line -- these are two entirely seperate things.

Alternate endings can be played inside the story line or along-side of it as an add-on.

Continuation of the story line means the main game's "real" ending depends upon the DLC making the total price the game advertised purpose (to conclude the story) HIGHER than advertised.  No legal minds here will argue this, I don't know why YOU are. 

Well, then back to broken steel that you defend that continues the storyline.

How does the story line continue except you have an option to live?  No extra content beyond that is added to the game... Post-end content is not dependant upon the dlc either.  I don't get how in the world you are saying this is in any way comparable to a DLC that has the "REAL" conclusion, reaper death, and "retaking earth" in it which was PLAINLY advertised as being included in ME3.

Broken Steel : Changes ending, adds a  new chapter to the game. Becomes the De Facto "Real Ending" to Fallout 3. Fits the criteria.

But, as for the Retaking Earth and the Reaper Death, isn't that already in the game, this is what I really don't get in that logic. It's poorly implemented, I'll give you that, but it's still in there. Adding a retcon to a story to change it's ending in a paid DLC has been done before and shouldn't be considered deceitful unless it was planned from the beginning. The later which is simply and evidently NOT the case here.

I'm not saying it's ethical though, but it's not Illegal. Of course it should be free, but it simply would not be illegal for them to retcon the story and make us pay for it.

It did not add ANYTHING post-ending, only an alternative to the ending where your character survived and alternatately you could go back and complete quests and expore where you had not done so already.  Yes, admittadly, it had a little "clean" up quest to go through and finish wiping out the conclave, but this had nothing to do with the canon, and was not advertised as being part of the main game beforehand.  The fatal error in ME3 is that the game was advertised before-hand as being the EPIC CONCLUSION TO THE SERIES.  Wherein if content is added that states the ending is a dream (which it is already precieved by a LOT of people to be) and that you wake up and then retake earth and finalize the series, THIS IS BAIT AND SWITCH because the "story" was obviously pre-written, advertised, and not sold as part of the advertised game.

Broken Steel: Junk content, alternate ending
ME3 "new" ending: Real "CONCLUSION TO THE ME SERIES" advertised with ME3 that never made it into ME3.

It should also be a dead giveaway that your final boss is Marauder Shields LOL.  This is about the most famous laughing stock of the internet right now.

Well we have got a game that is quite complete and it has been stated in the app "final hours of Mass Effect 3" that the ending was the one that was planned. We even have the leaked contents as proof of all this. Anything else after this is simply alternate endings... This is the ending they planned all along for ME3, nothing you say can change that.

And please, don't start telling me that you are one of those taking the IT as fact. If so, I can barely do anything for you anymore. It remains a fan-made theory that has not been confirmed or infirmed by Bioware.
There's a huge difference between having planned this as a shrewd way to take your money, as opposed to create a DLC following a fan-made theory to ease off the outcry as an alternate ending while making you pay for it.
The first one is dubious practice, the 2nd one is Broken Steel.

And what the hell about Marauder Shields? They stated repeatedly they did not want a video-gamey feel and have a final "boss" battle. Mass Effect went for the movie feel and it shows quite well with the TIM "boss fight" at the end.

No, it isn't part of the game (reaper death and stuff) because they made it obvious to most that it was not the "real" ending contrary to the advertsments. In fact if you know anything about rendering, or how to check the files of the game, it becomes very apparent that the ending is a "dream". The "glaucoma effect" is only used in the ending and in the dreams (to give the "dreamy, tunnel vision effect"), and assets used in the dream sequences were litterly decompiled and found to be used in the final sequences (foliage). These along show that the devs made an attempt to say "hey peps, this is a dream!" however subtile it may have been, but more on fact, they also alerted people this was not the end and again, contrary to its advertsiments.

OK.... Glaucoma effect only comes by while you are litteraly dying and gravely injured... I think that's the effect researched here. They used the same for dreams for convenience, because hey, foggy dreams are artistic.

Assets: They simply reused them, So what?

And pleeeeease how have they alerted people it was not the real end? I tend to be sceptical about stuff like that

I already said how this was "alerted"... the "dreamy" shaders in the final sequence that stats from the time you come to from being knocked out by Harbinger.  This shader is present in only one other place in the game, your DREAMS.  This is a dead give away that the sequence is a dream -- say what you want, but most TV shows do this in contrast with a white effect around the screen, ME3 choose the dark glaucoma effect with the dreams and implimented that shader only in one other place... as soon as you "regain" conciousness from being knocked out by Harbinger.  This is either one of the biggest fiasco's in gaming history, or one of the largest overlooked hints.

[Nostradamoose]

Dreamy shaders?

I see shaders used to demonstrate that Shepard took a blow to the head, that he's injured. He's just got a huge concussion. I thought the blood on the side of the cam proved that quite well...

[Tiax Rules All]

kilgorek wrote...

Yea, you go ahead with that big guy. I'll just stop buying their games. K?

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Broken Steel offered a "new" ending possiblity, it did not offer more cotnent to or after the ending sequence or void any part of the story line.   Selling a book as Z-a or Z-b is fine, as Brokensteel did.  Should brokenstell had stated that everything from the water facility's entry was a "dream" until it exploded and tout the advertising phrase "Conclusion to..." it WOULD have very finately been falsely advertised at best, and a strong bas case.

That's an alternate ending... no laws forbid selling that... you just pick the one you prefer...

An alternate ending is not the same as a continuation of the story-line -- these are two entirely seperate things.

Alternate endings can be played inside the story line or along-side of it as an add-on.

Continuation of the story line means the main game's "real" ending depends upon the DLC making the total price the game advertised purpose (to conclude the story) HIGHER than advertised.  No legal minds here will argue this, I don't know why YOU are. 

Well, then back to broken steel that you defend that continues the storyline.

How does the story line continue except you have an option to live?  No extra content beyond that is added to the game... Post-end content is not dependant upon the dlc either.  I don't get how in the world you are saying this is in any way comparable to a DLC that has the "REAL" conclusion, reaper death, and "retaking earth" in it which was PLAINLY advertised as being included in ME3.

Broken Steel : Changes ending, adds a  new chapter to the game. Becomes the De Facto "Real Ending" to Fallout 3. Fits the criteria.

But, as for the Retaking Earth and the Reaper Death, isn't that already in the game, this is what I really don't get in that logic. It's poorly implemented, I'll give you that, but it's still in there. Adding a retcon to a story to change it's ending in a paid DLC has been done before and shouldn't be considered deceitful unless it was planned from the beginning. The later which is simply and evidently NOT the case here.

I'm not saying it's ethical though, but it's not Illegal. Of course it should be free, but it simply would not be illegal for them to retcon the story and make us pay for it.

It did not add ANYTHING post-ending, only an alternative to the ending where your character survived and alternatately you could go back and complete quests and expore where you had not done so already.  Yes, admittadly, it had a little "clean" up quest to go through and finish wiping out the conclave, but this had nothing to do with the canon, and was not advertised as being part of the main game beforehand.  The fatal error in ME3 is that the game was advertised before-hand as being the EPIC CONCLUSION TO THE SERIES.  Wherein if content is added that states the ending is a dream (which it is already precieved by a LOT of people to be) and that you wake up and then retake earth and finalize the series, THIS IS BAIT AND SWITCH because the "story" was obviously pre-written, advertised, and not sold as part of the advertised game.

Broken Steel: Junk content, alternate ending
ME3 "new" ending: Real "CONCLUSION TO THE ME SERIES" advertised with ME3 that never made it into ME3.

It should also be a dead giveaway that your final boss is Marauder Shields LOL.  This is about the most famous laughing stock of the internet right now.

Well we have got a game that is quite complete and it has been stated in the app "final hours of Mass Effect 3" that the ending was the one that was planned. We even have the leaked contents as proof of all this. Anything else after this is simply alternate endings... This is the ending they planned all along for ME3, nothing you say can change that.

And please, don't start telling me that you are one of those taking the IT as fact. If so, I can barely do anything for you anymore. It remains a fan-made theory that has not been confirmed or infirmed by Bioware.
There's a huge difference between having planned this as a shrewd way to take your money, as opposed to create a DLC following a fan-made theory to ease off the outcry as an alternate ending while making you pay for it.
The first one is dubious practice, the 2nd one is Broken Steel.

And what the hell about Marauder Shields? They stated repeatedly they did not want a video-gamey feel and have a final "boss" battle. Mass Effect went for the movie feel and it shows quite well with the TIM "boss fight" at the end.

No, it isn't part of the game (reaper death and stuff) because they made it obvious to most that it was not the "real" ending contrary to the advertsments. In fact if you know anything about rendering, or how to check the files of the game, it becomes very apparent that the ending is a "dream". The "glaucoma effect" is only used in the ending and in the dreams (to give the "dreamy, tunnel vision effect"), and assets used in the dream sequences were litterly decompiled and found to be used in the final sequences (foliage). These along show that the devs made an attempt to say "hey peps, this is a dream!" however subtile it may have been, but more on fact, they also alerted people this was not the end and again, contrary to its advertsiments.

OK.... Glaucoma effect only comes by while you are litteraly dying and gravely injured... I think that's the effect researched here. They used the same for dreams for convenience, because hey, foggy dreams are artistic.

Assets: They simply reused them, So what?

And pleeeeease how have they alerted people it was not the real end? I tend to be sceptical about stuff like that

I already said how this was "alerted"... the "dreamy" shaders in the final sequence that stats from the time you come to from being knocked out by Harbinger.  This shader is present in only one other place in the game, your DREAMS.  This is a dead give away that the sequence is a dream -- say what you want, but most TV shows do this in contrast with a white effect around the screen, ME3 choose the dark glaucoma effect with the dreams and implimented that shader only in one other place... as soon as you "regain" conciousness from being knocked out by Harbinger.  This is either one of the biggest fiasco's in gaming history, or one of the largest overlooked hints.

And there, it had to be said :

Quote Pyramid

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...



Dreamy shaders?

I see shaders used to demonstrate that Shepard took a blow to the head, that he's injured. He's just got a huge concussion. I thought the blood on the side of the cam proved that quite well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLwZxUeJzK0 Glaucoma shader (dream)

http://youtu.be/QjWlb-99ZHs Glaucoma shader (very clear, clear, clear, clear (as harbinger hits you))

(I don't need to bring up the use of slow-motion do I?)

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 07:39 .

[moonlightwolf]

 They did give you a conclusion all be it a poor quality one, the retake earth catchphase could easily be ascribed to the final mission. sueing Bioware is a silly red herring. If they do release paid DLC related to the ending then frankly we all will probably buy it but we won't buy their next game so that all balences out.

[Fulgrim88]

leewells wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

Fenderbaum wrote...

On a more important note, all I said above works in the real world, which we are not in.  You did not BUY anything (unless you went retail, in which case you bought a case, a shiny disc, a bit of paper etc etc).

Video games are digital media...the same as films, music etc etc.  You bought and own nothing, all you did was pay for the right to use said media.

People really need to learn that.

If you paid $20 expecting to get Toy Story and you instead got the Bollywood version of Pulp Fiction you didn't get what you paid for.

You may need to read up on the law.

What he doesn't understand is he's really shooting himself in the foot by declaring that digital media is not art and only leased property which is regulated in most governents WAY diffrently (to the point it would be the demise of many publishers and game developers out there).

Just another bad case of consumer masochism. People want to be treated 2nd class, apparently. They even take some weird satisfaction out of defending the companies' "right" to do so.

Beats me every time. Humans are strange like that.

That being said, very interesting, intelligent discussion around here. I won't be able to partake as I need to get some sleep, but pray keep it going

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 03 avril 2012 - 08:13 .

[AtlasMickey]

Well, as far as I'm concerned the game ended and they retook Earth.

Put me on the witness stand. I'll swear an oath.

[leewells]

AtlasMickey wrote...

Well, as far as I'm concerned the game ended and they retook Earth.

Put me on the witness stand. I'll swear an oath.

Thankfully ill-gotten opinions such as this are not admissable in court -- the only "opinion" allowed in any court is that of a judge, jury, or certified expert witness.

What I find odd is that the "experts" (those critiques that would most likely be the ones allowed to testify with opinion) all declare the ending is "a work of art" and are affrimatively on the IT bandwagon which states the end is an inception, a unreal and virtual "never-ending" paradox.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 08:28 .

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...
(I don't need to bring up the use of slow-motion do I?)

I've had a head injury before, and I have migraines, and yeah the blurred vision, skewed perception of time, awkward controls, sound filters, and all aren't exactly tells here that it's a dream sequence. It's way more parsimonious to assume Shepard has a head wound.

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...



Dreamy shaders?

I see shaders used to demonstrate that Shepard took a blow to the head, that he's injured. He's just got a huge concussion. I thought the blood on the side of the cam proved that quite well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLwZxUeJzK0 Glaucoma shader (dream)

http://youtu.be/QjWlb-99ZHs Glaucoma shader (very clear, clear, clear, clear (as harbinger hits you))

(I don't need to bring up the use of slow-motion do I?)

Adrenaline rush? It... you know, explains this.

http://www.aele.org/...FPAUG/wb-19.pdf

Just saying

“During a violent shoot-out I looked over, drawn to the sudden mayhem, and was puzzled to see beer cans slowly floating through the air past my face. What was even more puzzling was they had the word “Federal” printed on the bottom. They turned out to be the shell casings ejected by the officer who was firing next to me.”

As for the tunnel vision:

“I told the SWAT team the suspect was firing at me from down a long dark hallway about 40 feet long. When I went back to the scene the next day I was shocked to discover he had actually been only about five feet in front of me in an open room. There was no hallway.”

Factual analysis of police officer in high stress situations and how perception was altered. It truly fits with the race to the beam.