182 réponses à ce sujet

[CDHarrisUSF]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

The first is simply not possible inside of budget.

They just sold a few million copies of their game... got extra money from CE, DLC, merchandise... and probably gave a bump to sales of previous ME content as well. They have plenty of money right now. Cash is not the issue. If they don't rewrite the ending, it will be because they don't want to. Saying that it's a budget issue is just making excuses to lower your expectations. I don't recall them saying that. All I remember is them saying that they stand by the artistic integrity of the ending in the final product (or something to that effect) and that's why they weren't going to change it.

The idea that free DLC is throwing money away is just not true. Valve's business model is to release all of their DLC for free (except when a game console doesn't allow it... *cough* Microsoft *cough*) because when new DLC comes out it tends to pull new players in who buy new copies of the game. It also helps keep the community alive, which can be vital to the continued success of a multiplayer game. Paid DLC doesn't work as well to keep a game alive because a large portion of the players will not buy it, which then fractures the community and can counterproductively drive the have-nots away even faster. It also doesn't boost new sales as much unless the DLC is included in a "game of the year edition"... but that practice can also be counterproductive as it can encourage people to just wait for that version instead in order to save money.

Fixing the ending to Mass Effect 3 (which is just rewriting one mission, not an expansion pack) and putting it out as free DLC would probably make them more money in the long run than half-assing it or charging for it. Not only would it increase sales of ME3 via word of mouth, but it would engender good will among their disgruntled fans who might otherwise pass on buying BioWare's future games. Having a strong following of early adopters who will gladly push your product for you can be invaluable.

Modifié par CDHarrisUSF, 02 mai 2012 - 12:40 .

[TheOptimist]

Just got to rereading this topic for the Synthesis ending. Again, for my Shepard, not what I would pick, because Shep won't trust the Reapers or anything associated with them. But it absolutely works from a logical perspective. And yes, you had to fudge a little more with synthesis than you did with the other two to make it workable, but honestly that has to be put down to the nature of the Synthesis ending itself, which was both the most complex option from a narrative standpoint AND the one that got the least explanation. I reiterate, I hope someone out there in Bioware is reading this, because as far as clarification goes, these absolutely work. They allow Shepard an actual victory condition, explain what is being done in each instance, and allow discussion and logical argument from Shepard. Yes, there are still a few holes, but they accomplish the goal of making the endings, and by extension the entire series, playable again.

Modifié par TheOptimist, 02 mai 2012 - 01:31 .

[Fapmaster5000]

CDHarrisUSF wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

The first is simply not possible inside of budget.

They just sold a few million copies of their game... got extra money from CE, DLC, merchandise... and probably gave a bump to sales of previous ME content as well. They have plenty of money right now. Cash is not the issue. If they don't rewrite the ending, it will be because they don't want to. Saying that it's a budget issue is just making excuses to lower your expectations. I don't recall them saying that. All I remember is them saying that they stand by the artistic integrity of the ending in the final product (or something to that effect) and that's why they weren't going to change it.

The idea that free DLC is throwing money away is just not true. Valve's business model is to release all of their DLC for free (except when a game console doesn't allow it... *cough* Microsoft *cough*) because when new DLC comes out it tends to pull new players in who buy new copies of the game. It also helps keep the community alive, which can be vital to the continued success of a multiplayer game. Paid DLC doesn't work as well to keep a game alive because a large portion of the players will not buy it, which then fractures the community and can counterproductively drive the have-nots away even faster. It also doesn't boost new sales as much unless the DLC is included in a "game of the year edition"... but that practice can also be counterproductive as it can encourage people to just wait for that version instead in order to save money.

Fixing the ending to Mass Effect 3 (which is just rewriting one mission, not an expansion pack) and putting it out as free DLC would probably make them more money in the long run than half-assing it or charging for it. Not only would it increase sales of ME3 via word of mouth, but it would engender good will among their disgruntled fans who might otherwise pass on buying BioWare's future games. Having a strong following of early adopters who will gladly push your product for you can be invaluable.

Well, that depends on what "re-write" means.  Cutting everything out after Anderson and Shepard talk?  Yeah, that's easy.  Patching in some slides?  Pretty straightforward.  Creating an ME2 Suicide Mission on the strategic level, with another Suicide Mission on the tactical level, with detailed levels and true squad dialogue?  Not so much.  Spinning up the dev cycle there would be brutal.  Not that it couldn't be done, but that if they didn't intend to do that, getting the pieces in place to do so would simply be non-cost-effective from a business standpoint.  Cold logic speaking, it might be better to let all of us walk off than gamble that much resource on winning back disgruntled customers.  

Would I love that last option?  God, yes.  It's what I thought I was buying, way back in the heady days of early March.

Do I expect it at this point?  No, sadly.  They will not be able to make ME3 back into what our expectations made it (or what they promised in those Game Informer pieces last year, truthfully.)  All they can do here is mitigate the damage with a good faith, "we screwed up, here's cake, please buy our future games".

Hence, the expanded endings.  Changing without changing, allowing them to save face while appeasing as much of the fanbase as they can, without breaking their own financial backs.  It's not pretty, it's not what I'd like, it's not what they'd like, but it is what it is.  Now we just hope for the best, imho, and be more wary with our pre-orders.

[Fapmaster5000]

TheOptimist wrote...

Just got to rereading this topic for the Synthesis ending. Again, for my Shepard, not what I would pick, because Shep won't trust the Reapers or anything associated with them. But it absolutely works from a logical perspective. And yes, you had to fudge a little more with synthesis than you did with the other two to make it workable, but honestly that has to be put down to the nature of the Synthesis ending itself, which was both the most complex option from a narrative standpoint AND the one that got the least explanation. I reiterate, I hope someone out there in Bioware is reading this, because as far as clarification goes, these absolutely work. They allow Shepard an actual victory condition, explain what is being done in each instance, and allow discussion and logical argument from Shepard. Yes, there are still a few holes, but they accomplish the goal of making the endings, and by extension the entire series, playable again.

Glad you like it, and I hope they're doing something similar!

I have multiple playthroughs still sitting on "park", waiting for a chance to run them again.

[Delta_V2]

I'm impressed. You managed to make Synthesis not absolutely terrible. I still don't know if I could choose it, because it still involves accepting the Catalyst's screwy logic, but at least the choice itself makes sense. I'm still not comfortable forcing this on the entire galaxy, but at least the reasons for doing so are made clear.

However, in your Destroy, ending, you basically have the Catalyst reveal itself to be a reaper. If the Catalyst is actually a reaper, wouldn't this invalidate the other options?

Ultimately, what I like the most about your expanded dialogues, besides the much-needed infusion of logic, is the fact that they make it seem like Shepard actually wins something. Currently, the final decision just does not feel heroic. Your endings restore player agency and give the player something they can call a 'victory'.

[George Costanza]

Just read the first one and I think it's excellent. With the choices fleshed out more, and the dialogue more meaningful, and with questions actually asked, it feels like something has been achieved. It's less of a "Oh hey you're here - pick one of these, please" over and done with situation like we have now.

[antony1197]

Valk72 wrote...

That would be actually acceptable, but like someone already wrote:

Hexley UK wrote...

Very creative....which is why Bioware won't do anything like it.

Hey look a month later and guess what? Its right...

[CosmicGnosis]

I'm bumping this old thread because I want to draw attention to this post:

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11118797/5#11727064

I think this post offers a very interesting interpretation of what Synthesis could have been.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 04 décembre 2012 - 06:06 .