149 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowOptik]

 I believe that you are wrong on all premisses. Please see my post in this forum: 
http://social.biowar...4714/1#11190824

[Trentgamer]

Grusome11 wrote...

Actually, at OP, I think it is the opposite.

I think EA pressured them and demanded MP, then they ran out of time. Even with a 3 month extension, they had to make a bunch of decisions to meet their schedule.

They cannot blame the boss (EA), so the best thing is to keep quiet.

The fact that they are keeping quiet speaks volumes about who is at fault. If it was BW, they would just take the blame and either fix it or say they are not going to fix it. EA suits are not going to take the blame and BW can't point the finger at them, so they say nothing.

This. Truth. People are forgetting who owns BioWare now and how many other franchise and gaming studios EA has destroyed with this exact same thing. 

[GuardianAngel470]

I see both sides of this analogy. On the one hand it is semi-applicable to Bioware. On the other hand it is semi-applicable to fans.

All I know is that it wasn't the ending that bothered me the most about this situation. It was the response from Bioware and the media. Bioware wouldn't own their mistake and the media helped them make excuses while demonizing anyone who disliked the ending.

For me I was numb because of the ending, then I saw the developer promises again and felt lied to, then the media called me an entitled, selfish, greedy whiner and I a got indignant, then Bioware refused to admit they made a mistake by falling back on crappy PR tactics/statements and ignoring the problem and I got angry.

[Freedom1]

I am loving all these people blaming EA for ME3's crappy ENDING. These same people loved ME2's ending and it was essentially the same thing. If you guys remember correctly, after the suicide mission, your crew was designing a new logo? Um, HELLO people? Get your heads out of your rear ends and smell the roses. It is Bioware's fault. Blame EA all you want but in the end, Bioware could have easily said, "NO, we are not going to do that to our fans."

[CountDrunku]

Yup. They could've came out with a definite "no" or a definite "yes".
But they waited and it was literally unbearable . . .
Now, it is a No. But, were giving away free DLC ?
They could've just had a FAQ session ?

Or maybe they blew it off in the beginning, he blew up, and they are doing what they should've done in the beginning, but they are trying to apologize for waiting so long by not apologize and releasing a free DLC to clarify lol XD

[mumwaldee369]

So in the ironic twist of the year, it turns out the game studio is the entitled bunch of artistes that do not have to answer for their product. Just give us your money and shut up.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

Is this the case with Bioware? Think about, aside from DAII (which, in my opinion, they suspected such backlash for the risks they took), Bioware hasn't really been the bane of such serious, unified backlash.

I believe this is the first time where Bioware has had it handed to them, and that what they thought was great, really wasn't. And they can't face the facts, so they hide behind their "Artistic integrity" and seem to completely contradict themselves when it comes to them being dedicated to their fans.

I get the feeling Bioware has never had to experience this kind of thing before, where their grand centerpiece goes up in flames, and all they can do is go about acting as if they are not the ones to blame. When a spoiled kid is so used to getting what he wants, when the time comes that he is told "no" he throws a hissy fit and continue to live in complete denial of the fact that life doesn't always give you what you want.

Bioware lacks humility, and I'm sorry to say it. No company that truly believes in its fanbase would point to critics reviews and wave their banner of "artistic intergrity". I company that really cares about itself, and its fans, is one that, yes, can be proud of it's creation, but also have the guts to stand up and say they messed up.

Someone else remind me who's supposed to be the spoiled child in this analogy?

[OH-UP-THIS!]

AtlasMickey wrote...

Ozzyfan223 wrote...
Bioware lacks humility,

I think you mean BioWare's fans.

My only response, is actually to your sig, pos I'm not giving you permission to turn me or my entire family, into a glorified husk, so p##s off.

[Allan Schumacher]

Freedom1 wrote...

nhsknudsen wrote...

The ending wouldn't have been so bad if... (yes it would still suck with a god kid, but expectations).

It was literally impossible to save everyone in the suicide mission, make both Miranda and Jack stand down happily. Make Legion and Tali stand down happily. Get both Krogan AND Salarian support and making peace between Geth and Quarians.

Now if we had forced choices of death like the VS and we had to make those choices throughout the series with forced loss people wouldn't expect the happy ending, at least not the happy ending where everyone is saved (that we care about; read; crew and Shepard)

Actually in the suicide mission, everyone survived and i didn't have the loyalty of miranda. granted maybe that was because i had her in my party fighting the human reaper but who knows. Point is, everyone survived.

i think the poster's point was that the ability to have pretty much unmitigated success in ME2 helped lead to people's expectations of being able to do so in ME3.

I actually was disappointed myself when I learned that ME2's suicide mission could be completed flawlessly (for me Thane died... ), as I was expecting it to require a sacrifice, similar to ME1.  Though while I think it makes for a less interesting story personally, I do think that that sequence is a well done demonstration of how to make interesting reactivity in a game.


EDIT:  I should have kept reading thread as this was already clarified :S

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 09 avril 2012 - 03:32 .

[mumwaldee369]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


i think the poster's point was that the ability to have pretty much unmitigated success in ME2 helped lead to people's expectations of being able to do so in ME3.

I actually was disappointed myself when I learned that ME2's suicide mission could be completed flawlessly (for me Thane died... ), as I was expecting it to require a sacrifice, similar to ME1.  Though while I think it makes for a less interesting story personally, I do think that that sequence is a well done demonstration of how to make interesting reactivity in a game.

Blast you and your commiseration!  Winning my respect....must resist...mission failed.

[Dartbeast54q]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Freedom1 wrote...

nhsknudsen wrote...

The ending wouldn't have been so bad if... (yes it would still suck with a god kid, but expectations).

It was literally impossible to save everyone in the suicide mission, make both Miranda and Jack stand down happily. Make Legion and Tali stand down happily. Get both Krogan AND Salarian support and making peace between Geth and Quarians.

Now if we had forced choices of death like the VS and we had to make those choices throughout the series with forced loss people wouldn't expect the happy ending, at least not the happy ending where everyone is saved (that we care about; read; crew and Shepard)

Actually in the suicide mission, everyone survived and i didn't have the loyalty of miranda. granted maybe that was because i had her in my party fighting the human reaper but who knows. Point is, everyone survived.

i think the poster's point was that the ability to have pretty much unmitigated success in ME2 helped lead to people's expectations of being able to do so in ME3.

I actually was disappointed myself when I learned that ME2's suicide mission could be completed flawlessly (for me Thane died... ), as I was expecting it to require a sacrifice, similar to ME1.  Though while I think it makes for a less interesting story personally, I do think that that sequence is a well done demonstration of how to make interesting reactivity in a game.

umm...apparently all that lag I got made me quote w/o words?  Anyway, I had said that I liked how the suicide mission was played out where you could get everyone through it.  However I would not have minded if you were required to leave someone behind like Virmire in ME1.

Modifié par Dartbeast54q, 09 avril 2012 - 03:36 .

[CronoDragoon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Freedom1 wrote...

nhsknudsen wrote...

The ending wouldn't have been so bad if... (yes it would still suck with a god kid, but expectations).

It was literally impossible to save everyone in the suicide mission, make both Miranda and Jack stand down happily. Make Legion and Tali stand down happily. Get both Krogan AND Salarian support and making peace between Geth and Quarians.

Now if we had forced choices of death like the VS and we had to make those choices throughout the series with forced loss people wouldn't expect the happy ending, at least not the happy ending where everyone is saved (that we care about; read; crew and Shepard)

Actually in the suicide mission, everyone survived and i didn't have the loyalty of miranda. granted maybe that was because i had her in my party fighting the human reaper but who knows. Point is, everyone survived.

i think the poster's point was that the ability to have pretty much unmitigated success in ME2 helped lead to people's expectations of being able to do so in ME3.

I actually was disappointed myself when I learned that ME2's suicide mission could be completed flawlessly (for me Thane died... ), as I was expecting it to require a sacrifice, similar to ME1.  Though while I think it makes for a less interesting story personally, I do think that that sequence is a well done demonstration of how to make interesting reactivity in a game.

I think you and the OP are right in this. I played ME2 first and was fully expecting ME3's ending to vary based on how well you played. It sort of does now, but we all know it's about the least significant thing about the ending.

As for whether or not it makes the story less interesting... perhaps in a non-Mass Effect game. I think including perfect solutions in every Dragon Age Origins choice would have been lame. But the defining feature of Mass Effect's choice system is the Paragon/Renegade system which is built to give you an out in almost every dialogue choice. Virmire to me is the exception that proves this rule. Mass Effect to me is about the way that Shepard can mold the world to his personality. Anything less and he couldn't really be considered a worthy adversary to the Reapers.

[Reign762]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mass Effect to me is about the way that Shepard can mold the world to his personality. Anything less and he couldn't really be considered a worthy adversary to the Reapers.

This is essentially the core tenet behind the Mass Effect franchise.  Every Sheperd is unique and individual to the player that controls him, but he doesn't accept defeat.  He molds the world to his personality.  People will follow him because they believe no matter how dark the end may seem they have hope in Sheperd.  Throughout the games he stays consistent and confident.  He says we'll keep fighting.  He knows they may not win, but they will make them earn the victory and the loyalty of everyone, all races, all military ranks, all the players will follow him to the end.

This is what is so heart breaking, is that in the final sequence, they threw out the continuity of what they built up the character to be.

Modifié par Reign762, 09 avril 2012 - 03:46 .

[Wabajakka]

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

 No company that truly believes in its fanbase would point to critics reviews and wave their banner of "artistic intergrity".

All that needs to be said...

/thread

[Dean_the_Young]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Freedom1 wrote...

nhsknudsen wrote...

The ending wouldn't have been so bad if... (yes it would still suck with a god kid, but expectations).

It was literally impossible to save everyone in the suicide mission, make both Miranda and Jack stand down happily. Make Legion and Tali stand down happily. Get both Krogan AND Salarian support and making peace between Geth and Quarians.

Now if we had forced choices of death like the VS and we had to make those choices throughout the series with forced loss people wouldn't expect the happy ending, at least not the happy ending where everyone is saved (that we care about; read; crew and Shepard)

Actually in the suicide mission, everyone survived and i didn't have the loyalty of miranda. granted maybe that was because i had her in my party fighting the human reaper but who knows. Point is, everyone survived.

i think the poster's point was that the ability to have pretty much unmitigated success in ME2 helped lead to people's expectations of being able to do so in ME3.

I actually was disappointed myself when I learned that ME2's suicide mission could be completed flawlessly (for me Thane died... ), as I was expecting it to require a sacrifice, similar to ME1.  Though while I think it makes for a less interesting story personally, I do think that that sequence is a well done demonstration of how to make interesting reactivity in a game.


EDIT:  I should have kept reading thread as this was already clarified :S

From what I understood, it was actually supposed to be harder/exceptional. Both loyalty confrontations were supposed to be a 'pending Virmire' sort of situation, with the persuasion being sort of an exceptional possibility.

Of course, as soon as people realized the persuasion out was there, 'exceptional' became 'expected', and people began feeling punished for failing the check rather than ruined for making it.



Personally, my favorite proposal/reinterpretation of how the Suicide Mission could have earned the title was from this.

[Allan Schumacher]

Dartbeast54q wrote...

umm...apparently all that lag I got made me quote w/o words?  Anyway, I had said that I liked how the suicide mission was played out where you could get everyone through it.  However I would not have minded if you were required to leave someone behind like Virmire in ME1.

I think, like a lot of ideas, it's something that works really well when not overused.  As a gamer, I think I'd be disappointed if every BioWare game had it so that you could get through every big plot point with some sort of ideal solution.  It'd also be bad if you never had that hope that you might be able to pull through.

So I think I appreciated that everyone could survive more than I would have, because I was expecting NOT to.


I good example for myself through ME3 was Tuchanka and Rannoch.  With Tuchanka, I had no choice but to let Mordin, probably my favourite NPC from ME2, sacrifice himself to cure the genophage.  It was a great scene and gave me that lump in my throat.  Fast forward to Rannoch, and I when I was presented with only the two options initially, I was very "NO!  BOTH THOSE CHOICES SUCK!!! :crying:"  Buuuut, as it turns out it WAS possible to get an ideal solution and make peace, which pretty much had me high fiving myself for how awesome I was.  If I went into that sequence thinking "Eh, there's undoubtedly going to some way to make peace" instead of "I really really hope there's some way to make peace!!!!" I don't think the scene would have been as awesome.

I also think that that scene is a great example of reactivity.  Reading up about the various things that need to be accomplished, going back to ME2, in order for it all to work out is pretty damn awesome.  Rannoch is easily my favourite part ot the entire trilogy.  It probably seemed more awesome because I figured nothing would top Tuchanka earlier!

[Dartbeast54q]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Dartbeast54q wrote...

umm...apparently all that lag I got made me quote w/o words?  Anyway, I had said that I liked how the suicide mission was played out where you could get everyone through it.  However I would not have minded if you were required to leave someone behind like Virmire in ME1.

I think, like a lot of ideas, it's something that works really well when not overused.  As a gamer, I think I'd be disappointed if every BioWare game had it so that you could get through every big plot point with some sort of ideal solution.  It'd also be bad if you never had that hope that you might be able to pull through.

So I think I appreciated that everyone could survive more than I would have, because I was expecting NOT to.


I good example for myself through ME3 was Tuchanka and Rannoch.  With Tuchanka, I had no choice but to let Mordin, probably my favourite NPC from ME2, sacrifice himself to cure the genophage.  It was a great scene and gave me that lump in my throat.  Fast forward to Rannoch, and I when I was presented with only the two options initially, I was very "NO!  BOTH THOSE CHOICES SUCK!!! :crying:"  Buuuut, as it turns out it WAS possible to get an ideal solution and make peace, which pretty much had me high fiving myself for how awesome I was.  If I went into that sequence thinking "Eh, there's undoubtedly going to some way to make peace" instead of "I really really hope there's some way to make peace!!!!" I don't think the scene would have been as awesome.

I also think that that scene is a great example of reactivity.  Reading up about the various things that need to be accomplished, going back to ME2, in order for it all to work out is pretty damn awesome.  Rannoch is easily my favourite part ot the entire trilogy.  It probably seemed more awesome because I figured nothing would top Tuchanka earlier!

I can agree.  I remember when I was given a choice between the Geth/Quarians I paused the game, stood up and paced for about 5 minutes deciding what to do, I then decided I had to go with the Quarians (mostly cause Tali was my LI) 

I was very happy to see in the next line of dialog I had the choice to broker peace.  I loved how choices we made, sometimes even small ones since I'm a stickler for doing every mission/side mission etc from 1 and 2 made large impacts on how things turned out while playing 3.  Situations with many variables and have many different outcomes are great, having a certain level of unpredictabilty and such.

[Joykilledme]

mumwaldee369 wrote...

BlahDog wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...

Ozzyfan223 wrote...
Bioware lacks humility,

I think you mean BioWare's fans.

I think your confused on who pays who.

I think you're confused on who makes games for who.

Only we can live without their games and they'll go out of business without our money.  See how that works?   We support them, not the other way around.

Afreakingmen!

[SoldierGryphon]

I agree with Allan. Having to choose between the Quarians and the Geth was one of the hardest decisions in the game (I didn't know there was a Paragon solution at first), but it's one of the things that made it interesting. Sometimes, in real life, there is just no talking some people down into a perfect solution. Hard choices must be made. I just wish the game didn't always make you feel so bad about making them, I wish I could have slapped some Quarian Admirals for defying my orders to stop the attack.

[viperabyss]

Dartbeast54q wrote...

umm...apparently all that lag I got made me quote w/o words?  Anyway, I had said that I liked how the suicide mission was played out where you could get everyone through it.  However I would not have minded if you were required to leave someone behind like Virmire in ME1.

Absolutely.

To be honest, I wouldn't even care if Shepard dies, or if everyone on Normandy dies (except Javik maybe). However, most importantly, MAKE US UNDERSTAND WHY THE SACRIFICE IS NECESSARY. I understand I have to leave one crew member behind on Virmire because there was no way Shepard could've saved both. But the lack of explanation on the Catalyst's part (14 lines total lolz) only makes me question louder.

[Allan Schumacher]

Dartbeast54q wrote...

I can agree.  I remember when I was given a choice between the Geth/Quarians I paused the game, stood up and paced for about 5 minutes deciding what to do, I then decided I had to go with the Quarians (mostly cause Tali was my LI) 

I was very happy to see in the next line of dialog I had the choice to broker peace.  I loved how choices we made, sometimes even small ones since I'm a stickler for doing every mission/side mission etc from 1 and 2 made large impacts on how things turned out while playing 3.  Situations with many variables and have many different outcomes are great, having a certain level of unpredictabilty and such.

I ended up watching the alternative outcomes on youtube, and one of my favourite things was watching the guy's dialogue wheel spin around maniacally.  He was clearly having a hard time picking which choice haha.

IMO the most powerful outcome is the destruction of the Quarians.  I actually find it very difficult to watch.  All the dust and sand in my room suddenly manifests itself in my eyes!  It's very annoying!

[Dean_the_Young]

There's definitely something to be said about mixing up your plays. If someone expects something, the attempt is less likely to work: that's why you need to randomize and induce uncertainty, so that they can't be sure and thus can be taken off guard.

It works in sports, really, but scenario design as well. Frankly it was one of the bad aspects of ME1 and 2 that got turned around in ME3, which broke the 'Paragon is greater or equal to Renegade' balance issue.

[Bantz]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Freedom1 wrote...

nhsknudsen wrote...

The ending wouldn't have been so bad if... (yes it would still suck with a god kid, but expectations).

It was literally impossible to save everyone in the suicide mission, make both Miranda and Jack stand down happily. Make Legion and Tali stand down happily. Get both Krogan AND Salarian support and making peace between Geth and Quarians.

Now if we had forced choices of death like the VS and we had to make those choices throughout the series with forced loss people wouldn't expect the happy ending, at least not the happy ending where everyone is saved (that we care about; read; crew and Shepard)

Actually in the suicide mission, everyone survived and i didn't have the loyalty of miranda. granted maybe that was because i had her in my party fighting the human reaper but who knows. Point is, everyone survived.

i think the poster's point was that the ability to have pretty much unmitigated success in ME2 helped lead to people's expectations of being able to do so in ME3.

I actually was disappointed myself when I learned that ME2's suicide mission could be completed flawlessly (for me Thane died... ), as I was expecting it to require a sacrifice, similar to ME1.  Though while I think it makes for a less interesting story personally, I do think that that sequence is a well done demonstration of how to make interesting reactivity in a game.


EDIT:  I should have kept reading thread as this was already clarified :S

dude with all respect, if thane died you fked up go back and do it over again! Thane is a badass and must be around to live out his badassary in ME3.

I get the point that a "suicide mission" isn't as dramatic if you can all live. But I thought it was a tribute to how badass shepherd was and it added to his lore. Here's a guy that's built a career on doing them impossible. But I do see your point.

now go fix the suicide mission thing, thane must live. If you gotta lose someone kill jacob he's kind of a douche anyway.

[Dylan Dogood]

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

Is this the case with Bioware? Think about, aside from DAII (which, in my opinion, they suspected such backlash for the risks they took), Bioware hasn't really been the bane of such serious, unified backlash.

I believe this is the first time where Bioware has had it handed to them, and that what they thought was great, really wasn't. And they can't face the facts, so they hide behind their "Artistic integrity" and seem to completely contradict themselves when it comes to them being dedicated to their fans.

I get the feeling Bioware has never had to experience this kind of thing before, where their grand centerpiece goes up in flames, and all they can do is go about acting as if they are not the ones to blame. When a spoiled kid is so used to getting what he wants, when the time comes that he is told "no" he throws a hissy fit and continue to live in complete denial of the fact that life doesn't always give you what you want.

Bioware lacks humility, and I'm sorry to say it. No company that truly believes in its fanbase would point to critics reviews and wave their banner of "artistic intergrity". I company that really cares about itself, and its fans, is one that, yes, can be proud of it's creation, but also have the guts to stand up and say they messed up.

Are you calling Bioware a spoiled child? If so. The irony.

Modifié par Dylan Dogood, 09 avril 2012 - 04:06 .

[Bantz]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Dartbeast54q wrote...

I can agree.  I remember when I was given a choice between the Geth/Quarians I paused the game, stood up and paced for about 5 minutes deciding what to do, I then decided I had to go with the Quarians (mostly cause Tali was my LI) 

I was very happy to see in the next line of dialog I had the choice to broker peace.  I loved how choices we made, sometimes even small ones since I'm a stickler for doing every mission/side mission etc from 1 and 2 made large impacts on how things turned out while playing 3.  Situations with many variables and have many different outcomes are great, having a certain level of unpredictabilty and such.

I ended up watching the alternative outcomes on youtube, and one of my favourite things was watching the guy's dialogue wheel spin around maniacally.  He was clearly having a hard time picking which choice haha.

IMO the most powerful outcome is the destruction of the Quarians.  I actually find it very difficult to watch.  All the dust and sand in my room suddenly manifests itself in my eyes!  It's very annoying!

the destruction of the quarians was powerful but for me having legion lash out to try and save his people only to get stabbed in the back (twice once literally once figuratively) by his friends and then turn to Tali and ask if he has a soul before he dies, was pretty damn powerful stuff.