281 réponses à ce sujet

[Erixxxx]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Erixxxx wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

... being of light?

I'm done. They just crossed the line into fantasy. Any further games and content are dead to me.

You have obviously never watched Stargate and the like.

Good thing this isn't.. Stargate?

Neither is it Mass Effect anymore as we knew it...

2001 then? Wouldn't be the first time Bioware has taken some inspiration from Arthur C. Clarke's stories.

[TransientNomad]

Erixxxx wrote...

Cogneter wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...

There are three groups, people who liked the ending, those who were just confused and didn't get answers so they got angry, and people who were angry because they didn't like the ending. In the closure DLC, they are aiming to make the people who were confused happy. They know they can't make everyone happy, so they want to please as many people as possible.

So, you want to please as many people as possible by making 1% + additional possible 15% happy, while disregarding 84% players who only want the ending with no starkid?

That's an interesting choice.

Since when has polls on one forum on the internet held the absolute truth of the world. Especially when one group feels strongly about one thing and tries to bash everyone down who feels differently. Which there has been a lot of on these forums the past month.

Fair enough.  Can you show me a poll, be it on this one or any other, that says anything differently?  Thing is, these polls are the only thing we have to go off of.  I would agree with you if it was close to a 50/50 rate and jump right on the "vocal minority" bandwagon.  But 80/20?  With thousands taking the time to vote?  Not so much.

[vitae-vixi]

I'm sure Bioware are missing or deliberately ignoring people... Or the amount of people who, ah, "dislike" the game's ending.

Perhaps they are using a points system akin to the War Assets?

People who liked the ending as it is +200 points.
People who don't care +100
People who are "just confused" +50
People who vehemently dislike the ending 0....

Either way they are filling their bar of delusion.

Also - has everyone forgotten that the indoctrination theory in one form or another is confirmed as a possible ending mechanic in "the final hours of mass effect 3"? And it was scrapped because they couldn't program it right? So all the markers i.e. the oily shadows which are said to be indoctrination markers are actually correct? it's just they scrapped it, not for story based reasons but for production problems?

.............

[TK EL_]

Apparently poor writing now equals artistic integrity. It's so clear now that they just don't get it or their hubris is too great. An 11th hour character with a godlike level of importance introducing an 11th hour problem that invalidates much of the last 3 games. The ending is bad writing and I know it. What group am I in?

[vitae-vixi]

People who recognize bad writing for what it is -1 (too clever, can't-hide-facts)

ARTISTIC EGO gets in the way of a representative negative score, you got a negative (recognition) for being too clever!

Modifié par vitae-vixi, 09 avril 2012 - 08:21 .

[Naltair]

Xewaka wrote...
So... The catalyst chamber is the Golden Throne, and Shepard is the EMPRAH?
It all makes so much sense now.

I hope this means that TIM is Horus.

Modifié par Naltair, 09 avril 2012 - 08:38 .

[ZackG312]

so they waste money on useless stuff like MP and Allers but hey the ending they can cut corners

Face it guys Bioware is now catering to casual players

[masterthehero]

Regardless of what was said at the conference, the fans have no right to change the ending to a video game. Let me explain why before the angry retorts come in.

If Bioware listened to the fans and changed the ending, this would essentially set a horrible precedent that future game companies would have to follow. freedom of expression would be annihilated in one fell swoop as future game companies began changing the endings to their videos games.

In Half Life 2, Alyx Vance's father survives.
Metal Gear Solid 4: The Boss survives, and Raiden is killed.
Ace Combat Zero: PJ survives and helps you fight Solo wing Pixie.
Grand Theft Auto IV: No one dies at the end.

Whatever message the video games try to convey will be ruined by fans complaining that the endings sucked because their favorite character died or they wanted more choice in getting a different outcome that was not intended by the developers.

Does ME3's ending have a few problems?  Yes, of course it does, that's why everyone is up in arms about it.  However, Bioware is not the first nor the last company that is going to make a questionable ending, and regardless of how dissatisfied customers are with the ending, they have no right to demand it be changed.

ME3 was awesome, I loved playing through it and felt rewarded in having all of my DLC decisions carry over into the new game, the ending was lackluster but it certainly wasn't as horrific as the fans made it out to be. Either way, when you go to buy a book or watch a movie, at the end you don't write to the author or movie director and say,

"Hey change the ending to this book or this movie, it sucked!"  But suddenly, add DLC to the equation and now fans think that they are suddenly entitled to asking for changes to endings in video games?  If Bioware were to actually say yes and change the ending, guess what?  You would set a precedent to all gaming companies that they should start removing their endings from videogames and turn it ALL into DLC.

It is fine an acceptable to not like the ending, there is nothing wrong with that.  There is something wrong however, with demanding a change to an ending that, quite frankly a couple of years ago, you would never have been able to request something like this.  It's awesome to see that the fans love this series so much, but it's not awesome to see that they think they are entitled to changing an ending to a video game.

[Zkyire]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Also, their personal theory is that in control you become a "being of light". I'm pretty sure they said they believed Indoctrination Theory. Their main point was that the devs won't tell you what exactly happened, because they want the game itself to do that. They said: "In 200 years, there won't be a Casey Hudson to tell you what happened, so ME3 has to do it itself."

Good thing Mass Effect 3 explained it all then.


...waaaaitaminute.

Modifié par Zkyire, 09 avril 2012 - 08:43 .

[vitae-vixi]

@masterthehero

There are already precedents for changing the ending of games - i.e. Fallout 3 or improving i.e. Witcher.

Games are not like Movies or Books, by their very nature they are interactive. If anyone has started a dangerous precedent it was Bioware by inviting the fans into their development room in the first place. They gave fans ownership of the franchise by putting in options which were popular with the fans - for example, the Tali / Garrus romance.

Movies and books are, on the whole, the vision of one person. They are not interactive, they do not allow you to make decisions, choose what the characters say or choose what to do or not do. They are static (in some cases however errors in lore etc. are pointed out by fans and the games are changed - think the dark elf trilogy. In this even the creators are gracious enough to accept they have erred).

DLC messes things up to. Content / story is optional to the player. They choose whether they want to see the whole "intention" of the writers or whether they are happy with vanilla.

Buying DLC is akin to rewriting something. It's the player's input. DLC was not an option a few years ago either.

There is a significant number of people displeased with the ending. Many would buy a DLC that would fix it. People who are happy with the ending wouldn't have to buy it and could stick with their vanilla game.

With the introduction of DLC we have entered a new age of fluidity within gaming. 

There are some damn clever people with serious issues with the ending. Bioware should listen to them seriously.

Modifié par vitae-vixi, 09 avril 2012 - 08:51 .

[Vox Draco]

vitae-vixi wrote...

@masterthehero

There are already precedents for changing the ending of games - i.e. Fallout 3 or improving i.e. Witcher.

Games are not like Movies or Books, by their very nature they are interactive. If anyone has started a dangerous precedent it was Bioware by inviting the fans into their development room in the first place. They gave fans ownership of the franchise by putting in options which were popular with the fans - for example, the Tali / Garrus romance.

Movies and books are, on the whole, the vision of one person. They are not interactive, they do not allow you to make decisions, choose what the characters say or choose what to do or not do. They are static (in some cases however errors in lore etc. are pointed out by fans and the games are changed - think the dark elf trilogy. In this even the creators are gracious enough to accept they have erred).

DLC messes things up to. Content / story is optional to the player. They choose whether they want to see the whole "intention" of the writers or whether they are happy with vanilla.

Buying DLC is akin to rewriting something. It's the player's input. DLC was not an option a few years ago either.

There is a significant number of people displeased with the ending. Many would buy a DLC that would fix it. People who are happy with the ending wouldn't have to buy it and could stick with their vanilla game.

With the introduction of DLC we have entered a new age of fluidity within gaming. 

There are some damn clever people with serious issues with the ending. Bioware should listen to them seriously.

I agree!

Concerning books I like to add the good old Conan-Doyle-Issue, as he brought Sherlock back from the dead in following books, although he had clearly killed him off...he did it because of fan-ourcry and of course to sell some more books. I think Bioware has the same right to do something similar..sacrificing a little of teh valuable artistic integrity to ensure future sales of DLCs...

Also, talking about DLCs...why is it bad when a company to please its fans is releasing an additional DLC to address the ending...would it be just as bad if, for example, the fans had asked for a DLC to bring back Wrex as a party-member? Or for Emily Wong making a return from the Twitter-Dead?

And what about the fact that Bioware decided to cut out some of their own art and make it available seperately (From Ashes?) This issue alone makes me laugh a little at this "artistic integrity" argument. As I see it without From ashes I already bought an incomplete product/vision of Bioware's art...and the end is just as incomplete at the moment.

[Ticonderoga117]

masterthehero wrote...

Regardless of what was said at the conference, the fans have no right to change the ending to a video game. Let me explain why before the angry retorts come in.

If Bioware listened to the fans and changed the ending, this would essentially set a horrible precedent that future game companies would have to follow. freedom of expression would be annihilated in one fell swoop as future game companies began changing the endings to their videos games.

In Half Life 2, Alyx Vance's father survives.
Metal Gear Solid 4: The Boss survives, and Raiden is killed.
Ace Combat Zero: PJ survives and helps you fight Solo wing Pixie.
Grand Theft Auto IV: No one dies at the end.

Whatever message the video games try to convey will be ruined by fans complaining that the endings sucked because their favorite character died or they wanted more choice in getting a different outcome that was not intended by the developers.

Does ME3's ending have a few problems?  Yes, of course it does, that's why everyone is up in arms about it.  However, Bioware is not the first nor the last company that is going to make a questionable ending, and regardless of how dissatisfied customers are with the ending, they have no right to demand it be changed.

ME3 was awesome, I loved playing through it and felt rewarded in having all of my DLC decisions carry over into the new game, the ending was lackluster but it certainly wasn't as horrific as the fans made it out to be. Either way, when you go to buy a book or watch a movie, at the end you don't write to the author or movie director and say,

"Hey change the ending to this book or this movie, it sucked!"  But suddenly, add DLC to the equation and now fans think that they are suddenly entitled to asking for changes to endings in video games?  If Bioware were to actually say yes and change the ending, guess what?  You would set a precedent to all gaming companies that they should start removing their endings from videogames and turn it ALL into DLC.

It is fine an acceptable to not like the ending, there is nothing wrong with that.  There is something wrong however, with demanding a change to an ending that, quite frankly a couple of years ago, you would never have been able to request something like this.  It's awesome to see that the fans love this series so much, but it's not awesome to see that they think they are entitled to changing an ending to a video game.

Points for trying, but here's the thing. When something makes no bloody sense and is badly executed and is inconsistent with itself and two other preceeding works, it needs to be ousted!

Case in point: Fallout 3
Ending was badly executed. Why? Two characters are immune to the insta-death scenario given to you. Do they help? Nope, they give you "it's your own destiny" BS.
Bethesda changed it after much smaller backlash, things are now awesome.

All the other games above that you mentioned are CONSISTENT within thier own universes. ME3's ending is not. It shoots itself in the foot and is an abomination to storytelling. It needs revamped. Big time.

[B3ckett]

I think that Casey Hudson is the Starchild and in 200 he wil still be around defending it's artistic integrity.

So, to sum up: in a few months time we will get cinematics to explain once again that the endings were excellent AND Starchild BLUFFED.
Excellent, really....

[Jonas TM]

Actually if what the OP is claiming is actually true for me at least it would move the needle from just past annoyed to satisfied.

I don't fit into any of the three classifications expressed here. For me I understand the ending, I am not a huge fan of such a colossal Deus ex Machina wrapping up one of the best series in history, but I read a lot of sci-fi novels and the encroachment of fantasy-style endings is something I dislike, but have come to expect (not accept mind you). But I understand what they did and why they did it.

My problem stems from 2 things:
1) The complete writing off of the Normandy and Crew of screen with ZERO explanation. Those characters are too big to be tossed aside without an explanation and that is why I personally am angry. If that is being addressed in a reasonable manner I will be happy.
2) Not properly explaining the results of your actions (which the OP touched on) or providing the player with enough info to draw their own conclusions. I know a good bit about the lore, but they didn't give us enough to go on IMO. I am fine with filling in the gaps, but not enough info was provided. I can accept the relays don't go nova, I can reasonably infer the Catalyst was bluffing in destroy, but the big results of what happened to the fleets, the galaxy, all of it, we cannot draw any kind of valid conclusion without more information. Again if this is fixed I will be happy.

I am really putting all my remaining hope in the assumption that Bioware will do a good job on the ending DLC. ME3 was a great game, for me at least the ending does not ruin the entire series (I know for many it does), if Bioware can salvage as many as they can, I think they can mark it in the win column, but that remains to be seen.

Modifié par Jonas TM, 09 avril 2012 - 10:03 .

[NReed106]

I'm glad we can take Dev promises at face value now, it's not like they ever lied to us before about the game like when stating the Rachni mattered and such....


Wait a minute....

[N7Gold]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...

As for the starkid, they said he was basically bluffing with the consequences of Destroy, since its possible Shepard and EDI can live. 

Oh. Holy. Frell! This PLUS them not wanting to say that IT is false? (Consider for a moment, a modified version of IT. Everything after the beam is an indoc attempt, yes. BUT it is also actually happening. The dreamlike setting? Not arguing with the kid? You are there. You are talking to...something. But at the same time, what you are seeing is something along the lines of augmented reality.

Did you read this section of the Marauder Shields comic? I really think the author may be onto something here. For those who don't want to click, "You were supposed to be the Catalyst, Shepard. The Chosen One of this cycle. The final betrayer. Harbinger chose you himself. As Saren was once chosen by Sovereign."

Holy... crap...! This could explain why the Reapers are so interested in capturing Shepard alive, both during the events of Mass Effect Redemption and during Arrival when Shepard was sedated! They want Shepard to be the new Catalyst! Even the current Catalyst wants to be replaced for some reason!

[The Night Mammoth]

masterthehero wrote...

Regardless of what was said at the conference, the fans have no right to change the ending to a video game. Let me explain why before the angry retorts come in.

If Bioware listened to the fans and changed the ending, this would essentially set a horrible precedent that future game companies would have to follow. freedom of expression would be annihilated in one fell swoop as future game companies began changing the endings to their videos games.

In Half Life 2, Alyx Vance's father survives.
Metal Gear Solid 4: The Boss survives, and Raiden is killed.
Ace Combat Zero: PJ survives and helps you fight Solo wing Pixie.
Grand Theft Auto IV: No one dies at the end.

Whatever message the video games try to convey will be ruined by fans complaining that the endings sucked because their favorite character died or they wanted more choice in getting a different outcome that was not intended by the developers.

Does ME3's ending have a few problems?  Yes, of course it does, that's why everyone is up in arms about it.  However, Bioware is not the first nor the last company that is going to make a questionable ending, and regardless of how dissatisfied customers are with the ending, they have no right to demand it be changed.

ME3 was awesome, I loved playing through it and felt rewarded in having all of my DLC decisions carry over into the new game, the ending was lackluster but it certainly wasn't as horrific as the fans made it out to be. Either way, when you go to buy a book or watch a movie, at the end you don't write to the author or movie director and say,

"Hey change the ending to this book or this movie, it sucked!"  But suddenly, add DLC to the equation and now fans think that they are suddenly entitled to asking for changes to endings in video games?  If Bioware were to actually say yes and change the ending, guess what?  You would set a precedent to all gaming companies that they should start removing their endings from videogames and turn it ALL into DLC.

It is fine an acceptable to not like the ending, there is nothing wrong with that.  There is something wrong however, with demanding a change to an ending that, quite frankly a couple of years ago, you would never have been able to request something like this.  It's awesome to see that the fans love this series so much, but it's not awesome to see that they think they are entitled to changing an ending to a video game.

Aren't you a regular Marty McFly. 

A precedent has already been established by BioWare themselves. It's called Mass Effect: Deception, look it up. It's being changed for much the same reasons as Mass Effect 3 needs changing.

It has little to do with Shepard's death, although that is a personal gripe for different reasons than you might assume, but the ending needs changing for a dozen other reasons that I don't care to recite again like I'm in church. It fails on pretty much every level. If it were just a case of people not liking it even though it made sense and was consistent with the rest of the series, I would stand on the other side of the fence. It fails on both accounts in multiple ways. 

Here's a good example - the Catalyst. A character, no, the primary antagonist even, is introduced in the last five minutes of the game without any sort of foreshadowing, deliberatly takes a form that is supposed to unnerve the player, who is reached by taking a magic lift, to an unkown but obviously predesigned location despite it saying these solutions are new thanks to the Crucible, and is given a grand total of 14 lines of dialogue to explain an entirely new theme and plot element which, by all acounts, was either resolved many hours previous by the player's actions or not even brought up at all except by a DLC character in some optional dialogue, and persuade you that it's the primary plot arc so you can make a choice between three coloured doors, that doesn't actually solve its dilema. 

Problem. 

Artisic vision be damned, when something sucks, it sucks. This argument is only ever brought up when something is like that. You don't see Bungie endlessly repeating that Halo 3 is their artistic vision and shouldn't be changed. You don't see Valve saying something similar about Half Life: Episode 2. Why? Because neither of their works have the same problems, and aren't therefore reviled by their own fans. 

This whole artistic vision stuff is getting tiresome. Clearly, BioWare lost sight of what made people like their franchise. Whatever message they intended to convey, they firstly: failed to convey is adequately so no one really understands what it is, and secondly: chose a message no one expected or wanted to hear because it doesn't fit the rest of the trilogy. They're doing a disservice to their fans who stuck with them, to the universe and characters they created, and most importantly to themselves, and the effort that went into the last two and a half games. They tried to be clever, and ran out of brains. 

Welcome to the future, time traveler.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 09 avril 2012 - 10:40 .

[Grusome11]

Camronnba wrote...

In 200 years, no one will give a flying f**k about ME3 unless they CHANGE the endings. I understood the endings fully, and I understand that they were f-in terrible

Actually, ME3 has a greater chance of being remembered 200 years from now if they don't change the endings.

As a cautionary tale to future game writers.

[lordofdogtown19]

Great post OP. This gives me a glimmer of hope for the EC

Modifié par lordofdogtown19, 09 avril 2012 - 10:39 .

[Oldbones2]

Why couldn't Bioware take the money they wasted on the Synthesis ending and use it to make a decent ending where you defy the Catalyst and everyone dies by Reaper?

I would have picked that ending, rather than submit. I think a lot of other people would have too.

(BTW, I know why, because it only took a few dollars to switch the color pallet to green for Synthesis.)

[Qutayba]

OK, I'm happy that the relays didn't go supernova, so I can feel slightly less genocidal. But If the relays had to be destroyed because they're Reaper tech, but can be quickly rebuilt using salvaged Reaper tech, I'm not really sure why they needed to be destroyed in the first place.

It's kind of like destroying a kid's bike so you can escape the training wheels, but then you build a new kid's bike with training wheels.

[sky99cap]

This just keeps sliding faster and faster down the drain.

[METALPUNKS]

No disrespect to the OP at all. Infact I'm glad you talked you them because now I understand it all.

Let me start by saying I liked the ending. I like how it made me feel and how it sat it with me. Now after reason this I thought I knew what was going on. I believed the ending went along with what I thought. Well after reading this I can't help to feel the devs have no clue. None of what was said to the OP made any sense to me as far as the ending is concerned. I got one thing out of what said and that's they ran out of time and money and with that they can't explain the ending. I've played mass effect for the story and how the decisions you make mean something. Originally I thought I had understood the hidden meaning or message behind the ending but the truth is there is none. I really wish I had never seen this, it's ruined it for me. They really don't know what the heck is coming out of their mouths. Now it falls on an integrity issue but all that is really is they can't change anything because they'd be giving in, it has nothing to do with further explaining.

The ran out of resources yet they now have resources to make an extended cut and put money into multiplayer. I enjoy multiplayer but I could do without it. I would of tossed out other areas of the game and really focused on the ending because it really is the most important part of this series.

Right now I'm a little taken back and confused as to what just happened. I have to really think all this through. Well at least now I know they don't know. Wow.

[DOYOURLABS]

 I was editing footage of the panels and I remembered another piece of information that I added to the main post.

If you want to see videos with the mass effect movie information, dragon age movie information, or various other bioware panels, I just uploaded all of my footage here.

If anything, the videos will give evidence that I was infact at BioWare base. 

[Pandaman102]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Community Manager- They will not make a new ending, because that would be unfair to the people who liked the ending.

It appears Bioware forgot that the ME trilogy was supposed to have multiple endings. Adding new ending branches wouldn't have upset anyone who likes the current ending because it tdoesn't remove or invalidate them.

Though to be fair, actually modifying the EMS system to allow for a greater variety would simply be too much time, money, and effort for a post-release patch. That kind of resources would be better off making additional DLC to milk remaining fans with.