1895 réponses à ce sujet

[Delta_V2]

edit: double post

Modifié par Delta_V2, 09 avril 2012 - 02:33 .

[Hatikvah07]

From everything I've heard it sounds like they're probably going to drop the whole "Joker runs away/everyone dies of starvation" thread, or at least present it in such away that it's less an Adam and Eve subplot and more "things looked hairy, but the crew learned how to function as a society, and eventually they were rescued by, oh, let's say…Conrad Verner."

Modifié par Hatikvah07, 09 avril 2012 - 02:35 .

[CronoDragoon]

Hatikvah07 wrote...

From everything I've heard it sounds like they're probably going to drop the whole "Joker runs away/everyone dies of starvation" thread, or at least present it in such away that it's less an Adam and Eve subplot and more "things looked hairy, but the crew survived and were eventually rescued by, oh, I don't know, Conrad Verner..."

That would be optimal. It just doesn't work. "Oh we're so happy we crash-landed on an abandoned planet without knowing who won or lost the war. Let's all look amused about this."

Drop the Normandy crash scene and Stargazer scene. Just....delete it please. 

[Delta_V2]

Hatikvah07 wrote...

From everything I've heard it sounds like they're probably going to drop the whole "Joker runs away/everyone dies of starvation" thread, or at least present it in such away that it's less an Adam and Eve subplot and more "things looked hairy, but the crew survived and were eventually rescued by, oh, I don't know, Conrad Verner..."

The problem is, it doesn't make any sense for it to happen in the first place.  My biggest problem isn't the crash itself (though it is still dumb), and more how it happens to begin with (your entire crew deciding to just run away).

[Hatikvah07]

The Normand crash CAN be salvaged, but it's not ideal, and it's a lot easier to just drop it replace it with something else.

Stargazer they can keep. I didn't mind the idea behind the scene (I'd actually predicted something like that way back when), but I think people give it a lot of flack because it arrives so shortly after the weirdness of the endings and it seems like the cherry on the **** sundae. I think my biggest problem is that it doesn't feel earned. The fact that we don't see what Shepard bought with their sacrifice (whether it was their life or the lives of the Geth and Edi), and then we're suddenly presented with a scene taking place millenia later that we get mood whiplash so fast our head spins around. If we're presented with some information about the post-war galaxy, and THEN get Stargazer, I think the whole scene will work a hell of a lot better. That, and the incredibly crass "SHEPARD IS NOW LEGEND. BUY DLC!" message that comes right after it just makes it worse.

In fact, I think the Stargaze scene sums up my feelings towards the endings: great idea, shoddy execution. There are some great ideas going on in the current endings, but they're presented so poorly, and in such a "cobbled together" way, that it just doesn't work.

[Hatikvah07]

*DOUBLE POST*

Also anyone who gets the reference in my previous post about the crew getting rescued by Conrad gets a cookie.

Modifié par Hatikvah07, 09 avril 2012 - 02:42 .

[Adanu]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Moogberg wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

What was the pic that Rob posted that drove Mike away?

bioware logo with a troll face...

Oh god is that it? Come on now

I'm defending Rob on this one if Mike can't handle a little humor.

It was the straw that broke the camel's back. If there hadn't been a few other people who had greeted him with sarcasm and accusations, Gamble might not have been offended that much by the picture.

You can't expect EVERYONE to just act like a boy scout and worship you when you walk in, and you certaintly can't expect people who no longer trust you to worship you either. A little sarcasm and accusations is to be expected. I think Bioware's definition of Constructive Criticism is a lot different than the real thing.

You're totally missing the point, and you're only digging the grave harder.

[pikey1969]

Adanu wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Moogberg wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

What was the pic that Rob posted that drove Mike away?

bioware logo with a troll face...

Oh god is that it? Come on now

I'm defending Rob on this one if Mike can't handle a little humor.

It was the straw that broke the camel's back. If there hadn't been a few other people who had greeted him with sarcasm and accusations, Gamble might not have been offended that much by the picture.

You can't expect EVERYONE to just act like a boy scout and worship you when you walk in, and you certaintly can't expect people who no longer trust you to worship you either. A little sarcasm and accusations is to be expected. I think Bioware's definition of Constructive Criticism is a lot different than the real thing.

You're totally missing the point, and you're only digging the grave harder.

God, we're still on about that?

[The Wumpus]

Hatikvah07 wrote...

*DOUBLE POST*

Also anyone who gets the reference in my previous post about the crew getting rescued by Conrad gets a cookie.

The Simpsons' Lord of the Flies episode.

I like chocolate chip.

[UrgentArchengel]

pikey1969 wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Moogberg wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

What was the pic that Rob posted that drove Mike away?

bioware logo with a troll face...

Oh god is that it? Come on now

I'm defending Rob on this one if Mike can't handle a little humor.

It was the straw that broke the camel's back. If there hadn't been a few other people who had greeted him with sarcasm and accusations, Gamble might not have been offended that much by the picture.

You can't expect EVERYONE to just act like a boy scout and worship you when you walk in, and you certaintly can't expect people who no longer trust you to worship you either. A little sarcasm and accusations is to be expected. I think Bioware's definition of Constructive Criticism is a lot different than the real thing.

You're totally missing the point, and you're only digging the grave harder.

God, we're still on about that?

Exactly, it's over, listen to our OP and back away.  No need for violent discussion, no need for arguing, just be civil and leave the troils to stew in their own filth.

[TheScott1987]

Sadly they're just clarifying - which means cheap fillers like "JOKER JUST LEFT CUS HE WAS LEADING SOME REAPERS AWAY DUH." It still feels unsatisfying to have him run from the biggest fight, especially as the Normandy is usually leading those fleets. Also lame to hear the game isn't as good because EA rushed it/'didn't give them as good of a budget. Would have sold so much better with a better ending, too.

And sad how they're avoiding the end so hard. Just saying they support it without having them respond to all the well-thought out points made is annoying,

[k-mysta]

Keeping hearing lack of resources cropping up. Don't get me wrong, I thought ME3 was longer than 2 and very enjoyable though flawed, particularly the ending and felt multiplayer was ok BUT could resources spent on multiplayer have been used to better flesh out singleplayer and therefore make it feel less 'rushed'? Genuine-non-trolling question. I just want to know if it would be possible or if I misunderstood the mechanics of the development process.

[UrgentArchengel]

TheScott1987 wrote...

Sadly they're just clarifying - which means cheap fillers like "JOKER JUST LEFT CUS HE WAS LEADING SOME REAPERS AWAY DUH." It still feels unsatisfying to have him run from the biggest fight, especially as the Normandy is usually leading those fleets. Also lame to hear the game isn't as good because EA rushed it/'didn't give them as good of a budget. Would have sold so much better with a better ending, too.

And sad how they're avoiding the end so hard. Just saying they support it without having them respond to all the well-thought out points made is annoying,

Maybe now EA will learn to be patient. Also, I have a message for EA...You got to spend money to make money.  Still, it seems clear without being obvious, Weekes is not really a fan of the endings.

[zakaryzb]

k-mysta wrote...

Keeping hearing lack of resources cropping up. Don't get me wrong, I thought ME3 was longer than 2 and very enjoyable though flawed, particularly the ending and felt multiplayer was ok BUT could resources spent on multiplayer have been used to better flesh out singleplayer and therefore make it feel less 'rushed'? Genuine-non-trolling question. I just want to know if it would be possible or if I misunderstood the mechanics of the development process.

Well a lot of the things in multiplayer were pulled from singleplayer, or visa-versa, and so they didn't need to completely create things from scratch like a whole new mission or cinematic would take.

[Valorefane Dragonwinter]

k-mysta wrote...

Keeping hearing lack of resources cropping up. Don't get me wrong, I thought ME3 was longer than 2 and very enjoyable though flawed, particularly the ending and felt multiplayer was ok BUT could resources spent on multiplayer have been used to better flesh out singleplayer and therefore make it feel less 'rushed'? Genuine-non-trolling question. I just want to know if it would be possible or if I misunderstood the mechanics of the development process.

They didn't really have to create new maps for it, because those maps were already implemented in the game itself.
Same thing with weapons and mods and playable races.
The only thing they had to put in was all the server side stuff and rewards, which, as I understand it, is an EA thing more than a Bioware thing.  EA is maintaining the servers, not Bioware.

I actually enjoy the MP portion.  It can be quite a lot of fun, and it even (mostly) fits in with the story.  That said, I won't be purchasing any points until the ending is fixed.  I normally put down a sizeable amount of cash on points for DLC or whatever, but now I'm holding the line with my wallet.

I think the best way for this to not have been rushed would be for EA to quit pushing them, tbqh. 

[MPSai]

Well you know, Gamble, you can still retcon the Catalyst without changing the endings. That whole Indoctrination Theory and all.

[Omega Torsk]

Really guys, I don't think Gamble was going to answer your specific questions here, anyway.

Not taking a side on this issue, I'm just being realistic. I'm of the mind that everybody needs to just chill out and cease the infighting.

[generalleo03]

One thing that kinda bothers me. Within the first 10 minutes of cutscenes in Mass Effect 1 Nihlus states categorically that "Without their [the Protheans] mass relays, interstellar travel would be impossible". That's a pretty bold statement. There's not a lot of room for interpretation. Destroying the mass relays and they saying "oh FTL still exists, galactic society can still happen" seems to smack this in the face. I'm just not sure how these two concepts can be resolved, short of just saying Nihlus was lying or stupid, which doesn't make much sense considering he was a spectre.

For those who don't remember: around 8:20.

[CronoDragoon]

Yeah, what is worrying now is that if they are so keen to stick to the relay explosion that it starts adversely affecting the rest of the series....

[habitat 67]

generalleo03 wrote...

One thing that kinda bothers me. Within the first 10 minutes of cutscenes in Mass Effect 1 Nihlus states categorically that "Without their [the Protheans] mass relays, interstellar travel would be impossible". That's a pretty bold statement. There's not a lot of room for interpretation. Destroying the mass relays and they saying "oh FTL still exists, galactic society can still happen" seems to smack this in the face. I'm just not sure how these two concepts can be resolved, short of just saying Nihlus was lying or stupid, which doesn't make much sense considering he was a spectre.

For those who don't remember: around 8:20.

Nihlus is just being overdramatic. He's a Spectre, the equivalent of a heavily travelled businessman. Mass relays are like jets to him.

[generalleo03]

habitat 67 wrote...

Nihlus is just being overdramatic. He's a Spectre, the equivalent of a heavily travelled businessman. Mass relays are like jets to him.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what makes you think this?  The point of this exposition is not to establish the character of Nihlus, but to ground the player in the universe of Mass Effect.  It should be assumed that the player doesn't know anything about the universe of Mass Effect in the first 10 minutes and thus needs a little exposition.  It's the same reason for Vega in Mass Effect 3, to give new players someone that appears to know less and needs some of the other stuff explained.  It's a common tactic for stories to present a character that needs explanations to give the reader some information.  

I personally think that was the exact point of the entire conversation, to describe the universe.  In that case, this directly contradicts what Gamble and company are saying now.  It just seems strange.

On addressing your point directly, I would expect someone in his position to give an accurate view of things to a potential spectre candidate.  There is little benefit in exagerating things to a seasoned veteran like Shepard.  Just my 2 cents though.

[RiouHotaru]

Really? Get off the EA thing. Stuff gets cut out of games all the time, it's not the fault of either the developer or the publisher. Sometimes your ideas just wind up being way too ambitious for the scope of what you can actually make.

Also, as far as the Catalyst is concerned, keeping him is fine. If there was more detail and context as to who made it, why they made it, why it concluded that the Reaper Cycle was the best option, etc, etc, would make it WAY more palatable without having to remove it.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

Hey guys, in a unrelated note Gamble said over twitter that hes planning on dropping by BSN a few times this week. If he actually does let's not drive him away from the forums alright? I know we're angry and confused but it's better to have dialogue from someone working at bioware than absolutely nothing.

[Fxnris]

People are stating destroy is canon-

I don't think any are canon, all 3 are unique and our own choice.

I predict that with control: Shepard and his reaper pals rebuild the relays

Destroy: bittersweet, shep survives, galaxy has to start the slow rebuild process, unaided by reapers, possibly show a synthetic race battling an organic race a thousand years in future etc etc.

Synthesis: well, happily ever after.

I chose destroy, I didn't want my shep to die, I wanted my blue babies, but when you look at it, it was the most selfish choice of the lot.

Synthesis seems to solve the whole problem of the reapers in the first place, the whole synthetics rebel etc, well everyone's partly synthetic now.

And control, well, if any synthetics try to rise up, shep and his best pal harby will come and give them a good talking to.

I think all the extended cut will do is show us the consequences of all 3 choices, each one unique.

[Hatikvah07]

The Wumpus wrote...

Hatikvah07 wrote...

*DOUBLE POST*

Also anyone who gets the reference in my previous post about the crew getting rescued by Conrad gets a cookie.

The Simpsons' Lord of the Flies episode.

I like chocolate chip.