281 réponses à ce sujet

[wesr]

They had something up their sleeves no doubt but i think the crapstorm over the endings threw them for a loop.

[TK EL_]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

masterthehero wrote...

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.

Exactamundo

[ham89]

TK EL wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

masterthehero wrote...

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.

Exactamundo

 

Okay. First, the antogonist, the new one called the catalyst is like a plot twist. If you didn't understand it, then you didn't listen carefully or you just can't wrap your head around what was going on. The artistic vision is only bad because you didn't like it, it's a matter of opinion, and I loved the ending and everything that went with it, it was enlightening, yet provoked many questions. Enlightening in a way that their is someone else controlling the reapers, and that their technology has the power to almost create like, a god, something that, no, we still don't understand, but only because the reapers are EXTREMELY advanced, and they clearly wanted to keep that edge on the reapers, still mysteriously god like. Plus, the whole point of the game was to, what? Stop the reapers, not understand them. I don't understand why you hate it so much, the fact that you still understand so little of the reapers, like I recently just said, the whole point was to stopt them, not to understand them, the catalyst was there to tell you how to do that. The catalyst was clearly some sort of AI, VI, or program of some sort of the reapers, or the guy who created the very first one, clearly has the ability to take things from your mind and make them a hologram to convey his messages. you don't know what they're capable of.

Bungie didn't constantly say it's their artistic vision, because they were never asked for their ending to be changed so much like people are doing to Bioware right now.  

Anyways, this is why I thought it was fine. I'm voicing this to give a bit more understanding to the poster I'm quoting and also, to let Bioware know, and people who hate it, that there are people who like the ending and would be upset, if they changed the ending entirely. I know their not, so I'm happy.  I didn't read forum rules, if this is in the wrong place then my bad.

[Reth Shepherd]

ham89 wrote...

TK EL wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

masterthehero wrote...

*snipped for length, not for content.*

Exactamundo

 

Okay. First, the antogonist, the new one called the catalyst is like a plot twist. If you didn't understand it, then you didn't listen carefully or you just can't wrap your head around what was going on. The artistic vision is only bad because you didn't like it, it's a matter of opinion, and I loved the ending and everything that went with it, it was enlightening, yet provoked many questions. Enlightening in a way that their is someone else controlling the reapers, and that their technology has the power to almost create like, a god, something that, no, we still don't understand, but only because the reapers are EXTREMELY advanced, and they clearly wanted to keep that edge on the reapers, still mysteriously god like. Plus, the whole point of the game was to, what? Stop the reapers, not understand them. I don't understand why you hate it so much, the fact that you still understand so little of the reapers, like I recently just said, the whole point was to stopt them, not to understand them, the catalyst was there to tell you how to do that. The catalyst was clearly some sort of AI, VI, or program of some sort of the reapers, or the guy who created the very first one, clearly has the ability to take things from your mind and make them a hologram to convey his messages. you don't know what they're capable of.

Bungie didn't constantly say it's their artistic vision, because they were never asked for their ending to be changed so much like people are doing to Bioware right now.  

Anyways, this is why I thought it was fine. I'm voicing this to give a bit more understanding to the poster I'm quoting and also, to let Bioware know, and people who hate it, that there are people who like the ending and would be upset, if they changed the ending entirely. I know their not, so I'm happy.  I didn't read forum rules, if this is in the wrong place then my bad.

O-kay.

Plot twists usually add to the story, and allow us to look back at everything that's occurred in a completely new light. To take the well-known Harry Potter series, book 2; we have Tom Riddle, a seemingly decent kid who's our witness to an old crime being mirrored in the current time. Right near the end he turns out to be the villain. (apologies to anyone I just spoiled, but seriously, you've had plenty of time to read it by now!) When we look back, we realize that there are hints scattered here and there that all was not as it seemed. Moreover, it adds to the story as we realize just how evil and manipulative this kid is, and makes us want to finish him all the more. The Tom Riddle plot twist takes the existing storyline, knots it together, and throws it back to us to finish with the stakes drastically raised. While one aspect of it hits us like a truck, it clearly belongs.

Star Kid...does frankly not. It takes the existing storyline, kind of twists it over itself a few times, then chops it up, selects one minor strand to keep, and throws the rest away. It completely invalidates making peace between the Quarians and the Geth, invalidates Edi and her growing relationship with her crew, makes you a war criminal worse than anything you ever accused TIM or Saren of...you get the picture. There is ONE solitary line in the game that hints that anything is controlling the Reapers. (Actually, I'm not sure that line even goes that far.) The entire rest of the trilogy outright stated that they were under their own control with Harbinger being some sort of leader. Even that plot twist would work had it had not come completely out of left field.

Deus Ex Machina: "a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that
appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty", according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. So we had extremely powerful Reapers. They were established from the very beginning of the game trilogy. Why is it nessessary to introduce something controlling the Reapers? They were fine as a mysterious predatory menace. What is gained by introducing the Star Kid? And if he WAS somehow integral to the plot, why was there no foreshadowing whatsoever? Why is it nessessary that the Mass Effect universe have a 'god figure'?

Compare the Star Kid with Sovereign. We knew almost NOTHING about him, except that he wanted nothing more or less than our complete destruction. And that was fine! Sovereign made for a powerful villain whom we were fighting because if we didn't, we were dead. Oh yeah, and he had the ability to twist minds. Did we need to know anything more about him? Nope, so obviously it's not the mystery that was the Star Kid's problem.

May I suggest watching Acavyos' excellent Indoctrination Theory video on Youtube? THAT is a plot twist, and one that is deeply foreshadowed throughout the series. Even if it turns out not to be true, it is still a plot twist that makes more sense than a god-child coming out of nowhere right at the very end.

[DnVill]

They made us speculate on the ending because they themselves had no idea how to end it.... "feedback"

[ham89]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

ham89 wrote...

TK EL wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

masterthehero wrote...

*snipped for length, not for content.*

Exactamundo

 

Okay. First, the antogonist, the new one called the catalyst is like a plot twist. If you didn't understand it, then you didn't listen carefully or you just can't wrap your head around what was going on. The artistic vision is only bad because you didn't like it, it's a matter of opinion, and I loved the ending and everything that went with it, it was enlightening, yet provoked many questions. Enlightening in a way that their is someone else controlling the reapers, and that their technology has the power to almost create like, a god, something that, no, we still don't understand, but only because the reapers are EXTREMELY advanced, and they clearly wanted to keep that edge on the reapers, still mysteriously god like. Plus, the whole point of the game was to, what? Stop the reapers, not understand them. I don't understand why you hate it so much, the fact that you still understand so little of the reapers, like I recently just said, the whole point was to stopt them, not to understand them, the catalyst was there to tell you how to do that. The catalyst was clearly some sort of AI, VI, or program of some sort of the reapers, or the guy who created the very first one, clearly has the ability to take things from your mind and make them a hologram to convey his messages. you don't know what they're capable of.

Bungie didn't constantly say it's their artistic vision, because they were never asked for their ending to be changed so much like people are doing to Bioware right now.  

Anyways, this is why I thought it was fine. I'm voicing this to give a bit more understanding to the poster I'm quoting and also, to let Bioware know, and people who hate it, that there are people who like the ending and would be upset, if they changed the ending entirely. I know their not, so I'm happy.  I didn't read forum rules, if this is in the wrong place then my bad.

O-kay.

Plot twists usually add to the story, and allow us to look back at everything that's occurred in a completely new light. To take the well-known Harry Potter series, book 2; we have Tom Riddle, a seemingly decent kid who's our witness to an old crime being mirrored in the current time. Right near the end he turns out to be the villain. (apologies to anyone I just spoiled, but seriously, you've had plenty of time to read it by now!) When we look back, we realize that there are hints scattered here and there that all was not as it seemed. Moreover, it adds to the story as we realize just how evil and manipulative this kid is, and makes us want to finish him all the more. The Tom Riddle plot twist takes the existing storyline, knots it together, and throws it back to us to finish with the stakes drastically raised. While one aspect of it hits us like a truck, it clearly belongs.

Star Kid...does frankly not. It takes the existing storyline, kind of twists it over itself a few times, then chops it up, selects one minor strand to keep, and throws the rest away. It completely invalidates making peace between the Quarians and the Geth, invalidates Edi and her growing relationship with her crew, makes you a war criminal worse than anything you ever accused TIM or Saren of...you get the picture. There is ONE solitary line in the game that hints that anything is controlling the Reapers. (Actually, I'm not sure that line even goes that far.) The entire rest of the trilogy outright stated that they were under their own control with Harbinger being some sort of leader. Even that plot twist would work had it had not come completely out of left field.

Deus Ex Machina: "a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that
appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty", according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. So we had extremely powerful Reapers. They were established from the very beginning of the game trilogy. Why is it nessessary to introduce something controlling the Reapers? They were fine as a mysterious predatory menace. What is gained by introducing the Star Kid? And if he WAS somehow integral to the plot, why was there no foreshadowing whatsoever? Why is it nessessary that the Mass Effect universe have a 'god figure'?

Compare the Star Kid with Sovereign. We knew almost NOTHING about him, except that he wanted nothing more or less than our complete destruction. And that was fine! Sovereign made for a powerful villain whom we were fighting because if we didn't, we were dead. Oh yeah, and he had the ability to twist minds. Did we need to know anything more about him? Nope, so obviously it's not the mystery that was the Star Kid's problem.

May I suggest watching Acavyos' excellent Indoctrination Theory video on Youtube? THAT is a plot twist, and one that is deeply foreshadowed throughout the series. Even if it turns out not to be true, it is still a plot twist that makes more sense than a god-child coming out of nowhere right at the very end.

You gained the knowledge that the star kid is controlling the reapers, so you do gain something there, you didn't like it very much though. In a way I can kind of see how Bioware didn't know what the star kid was actually, but that's because no one really knows what a god is, do they? If you have a problem with that, well then, I can't change your mind, that's just your preferences pitting against mine. I thought that was good because it sort of closed everything off, you destoyed/controlled/turned everything into an synthganic (organic and synthetic being..haha) and with a little help from god kid, the crucible and the citadel, sort of shepard going into god-hood, literally becoming a god and a legend. Plus everybodies fine! 

Now I would be lying if I said I loved everything about it, sorry about that. Closure....I mean I'm fine without it, but it would have been good to see the consequences of what you picked (if there are any) and what exactly happened to your crew. How did Garrus and Joker get back to civilization, the relays (in most endings) are destroyed so FTL across the galaxy? Years of travel. But then that's where I filled in the blanks myself, and extrapolated, and I kind of like it that way...for the most part. Now again, if you don't like doing that either, then your preferences against mine. 

PLUS. one more thing. Mass Effect decpetion is being changed (I looked it up, as you have said) BUT that is because there must have been canon BREAKING or game BRAKING or Mass Effect BREAKING reasons, making it a bit more justified than changing the ending to Mass Effect 3 because you demand it, and also because you didn't like it. If there wasn't canon breaking things for the novel then yes, Bioware is treading in new territory and are very scared, and I'd be a bit too. Letting fans tell you how to make your game? I mean, theres got to be some point where they stop listening and doing what your saying, and go, this is our game, and this is what happens to the galaxy. 

[jumpingkaede]

ham89 wrote...

The catalyst was clearly some sort of AI, VI, or program of some sort of the reapers, or the guy who created the very first one, clearly has the ability to take things from your mind and make them a hologram to convey his messages. 

So it was clearly:

An AI or a VI or a program of "some sort" of the Reapers, or possibly of the guy who created the Reapers.

With clarity like that, one wonders why an Extended Cut is even necessary.  Plain as day, it is.

[FlyingCow371]

They don't need to remove the 3 endings, they just need to add (at least) 1 more where you don't just decide to believe the reaper baby star child thing and be a tool of the reapers. 1 extra option = people who like the endings still have their original choices; people who were confused can get their clarifications; and people who hated the endings have another more acceptable option that makes sense for their Shepard. All 3 groups are happy, not just the 1 that wanted a bit more information so things made sense.

[eric2465]

ham89 wrote...

Now I would be lying if I said I loved everything about it, sorry about that. Closure....I mean I'm fine without it, but it would have been good to see the consequences of what you picked (if there are any) and what exactly happened to your crew. How did Garrus and Joker get back to civilization, the relays (in most endings) are destroyed so FTL across the galaxy? Years of travel. But then that's where I filled in the blanks myself, and extrapolated, and I kind of like it that way...for the most part. Now again, if you don't like doing that either, then your preferences against mine. 

 

Shorter Ham89:  "On second thoughts the endings could have been better!". :innocent:

Modifié par eric2465, 10 avril 2012 - 11:38 .

[ham89]

Could have been better, sure, do I want it changed completely? of course not! It was good.

[ham89]

jumpingkaede wrote...

ham89 wrote...

The catalyst was clearly some sort of AI, VI, or program of some sort of the reapers, or the guy who created the very first one, clearly has the ability to take things from your mind and make them a hologram to convey his messages. 

So it was clearly:

An AI or a VI or a program of "some sort" of the Reapers, or possibly of the guy who created the Reapers.

With clarity like that, one wonders why an Extended Cut is even necessary.  Plain as day, it is.

 

lmao Like I said, there is a lot of filling in, which some people (clearly) don't like.

[Zulmoka531]

The more and more I see and hear, the more and more I am going to end up distancing myself from the "new" Bioware.

Day 1 buys and pre-orders are out of the question from now on. If they keep up at this rate..well they'll be joining the EA graveyard of developers that were milked too much.

[killnoob]

Merizan say they want to please as many players as they can, why not start pleasing those who disliked the ending?....

[silverstreakusa]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Community Manager- They will not make a new ending, because that would be unfair to the people who liked the ending. The way they explained it was basically this: 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.

OK now thats just retarded...why don't they just make it an OPTIONAL download DLC? for those of us who like it as it is if you like how it ends already then just dont download it. if you want to see more then you download the free expansion.
 you would think this would be a no brainer....I hope someone at bioware reads this..

Modifié par silverstreakusa, 11 avril 2012 - 01:43 .

[ham89]

silverstreakusa wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Community Manager- They will not make a new ending, because that would be unfair to the people who liked the ending. The way they explained it was basically this: 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.

OK now thats just retarded...why don't they just make it an OPTIONAL download DLC? for those of us who like it as it is if you like how it ends already then just dont download it. if you want to see more then you download the free expansion.
 you would think this would be a no brainer....I hope someone at bioware reads this..

I think the reason why this wouldn't do is because most of the people who like the ending would believe the true ending is the one that the DLC holds, because it is the final work of Bioware. They'd get that sense that their ending is obsolete. PLUS, Bioware most likely wants to keep THEIR ending, and tell their story. Like they said, they will try to please the most amount of people, but won't be able to please all. 

Modifié par ham89, 11 avril 2012 - 03:14 .

[Riion]

ham89 wrote...

Reth Shepherd wrote...

ham89 wrote...

TK EL wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

masterthehero wrote...

*snipped for length, not for content.*

Exactamundo

 

Okay. First, the antogonist, the new one called the catalyst is like a plot twist. If you didn't understand it, then you didn't listen carefully or you just can't wrap your head around what was going on. The artistic vision is only bad because you didn't like it, it's a matter of opinion, and I loved the ending and everything that went with it, it was enlightening, yet provoked many questions. Enlightening in a way that their is someone else controlling the reapers, and that their technology has the power to almost create like, a god, something that, no, we still don't understand, but only because the reapers are EXTREMELY advanced, and they clearly wanted to keep that edge on the reapers, still mysteriously god like. Plus, the whole point of the game was to, what? Stop the reapers, not understand them. I don't understand why you hate it so much, the fact that you still understand so little of the reapers, like I recently just said, the whole point was to stopt them, not to understand them, the catalyst was there to tell you how to do that. The catalyst was clearly some sort of AI, VI, or program of some sort of the reapers, or the guy who created the very first one, clearly has the ability to take things from your mind and make them a hologram to convey his messages. you don't know what they're capable of.

Bungie didn't constantly say it's their artistic vision, because they were never asked for their ending to be changed so much like people are doing to Bioware right now.  

Anyways, this is why I thought it was fine. I'm voicing this to give a bit more understanding to the poster I'm quoting and also, to let Bioware know, and people who hate it, that there are people who like the ending and would be upset, if they changed the ending entirely. I know their not, so I'm happy.  I didn't read forum rules, if this is in the wrong place then my bad.

O-kay.

Plot twists usually add to the story, and allow us to look back at everything that's occurred in a completely new light. To take the well-known Harry Potter series, book 2; we have Tom Riddle, a seemingly decent kid who's our witness to an old crime being mirrored in the current time. Right near the end he turns out to be the villain. (apologies to anyone I just spoiled, but seriously, you've had plenty of time to read it by now!) When we look back, we realize that there are hints scattered here and there that all was not as it seemed. Moreover, it adds to the story as we realize just how evil and manipulative this kid is, and makes us want to finish him all the more. The Tom Riddle plot twist takes the existing storyline, knots it together, and throws it back to us to finish with the stakes drastically raised. While one aspect of it hits us like a truck, it clearly belongs.

Star Kid...does frankly not. It takes the existing storyline, kind of twists it over itself a few times, then chops it up, selects one minor strand to keep, and throws the rest away. It completely invalidates making peace between the Quarians and the Geth, invalidates Edi and her growing relationship with her crew, makes you a war criminal worse than anything you ever accused TIM or Saren of...you get the picture. There is ONE solitary line in the game that hints that anything is controlling the Reapers. (Actually, I'm not sure that line even goes that far.) The entire rest of the trilogy outright stated that they were under their own control with Harbinger being some sort of leader. Even that plot twist would work had it had not come completely out of left field.

Deus Ex Machina: "a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that
appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty", according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. So we had extremely powerful Reapers. They were established from the very beginning of the game trilogy. Why is it nessessary to introduce something controlling the Reapers? They were fine as a mysterious predatory menace. What is gained by introducing the Star Kid? And if he WAS somehow integral to the plot, why was there no foreshadowing whatsoever? Why is it nessessary that the Mass Effect universe have a 'god figure'?

Compare the Star Kid with Sovereign. We knew almost NOTHING about him, except that he wanted nothing more or less than our complete destruction. And that was fine! Sovereign made for a powerful villain whom we were fighting because if we didn't, we were dead. Oh yeah, and he had the ability to twist minds. Did we need to know anything more about him? Nope, so obviously it's not the mystery that was the Star Kid's problem.

May I suggest watching Acavyos' excellent Indoctrination Theory video on Youtube? THAT is a plot twist, and one that is deeply foreshadowed throughout the series. Even if it turns out not to be true, it is still a plot twist that makes more sense than a god-child coming out of nowhere right at the very end.

You gained the knowledge that the star kid is controlling the reapers, so you do gain something there, you didn't like it very much though. In a way I can kind of see how Bioware didn't know what the star kid was actually, but that's because no one really knows what a god is, do they? If you have a problem with that, well then, I can't change your mind, that's just your preferences pitting against mine. I thought that was good because it sort of closed everything off, you destoyed/controlled/turned everything into an synthganic (organic and synthetic being..haha) and with a little help from god kid, the crucible and the citadel, sort of shepard going into god-hood, literally becoming a god and a legend. Plus everybodies fine! 

Now I would be lying if I said I loved everything about it, sorry about that. Closure....I mean I'm fine without it, but it would have been good to see the consequences of what you picked (if there are any) and what exactly happened to your crew. How did Garrus and Joker get back to civilization, the relays (in most endings) are destroyed so FTL across the galaxy? Years of travel. But then that's where I filled in the blanks myself, and extrapolated, and I kind of like it that way...for the most part. Now again, if you don't like doing that either, then your preferences against mine. 

PLUS. one more thing. Mass Effect decpetion is being changed (I looked it up, as you have said) BUT that is because there must have been canon BREAKING or game BRAKING or Mass Effect BREAKING reasons, making it a bit more justified than changing the ending to Mass Effect 3 because you demand it, and also because you didn't like it. If there wasn't canon breaking things for the novel then yes, Bioware is treading in new territory and are very scared, and I'd be a bit too. Letting fans tell you how to make your game? I mean, theres got to be some point where they stop listening and doing what your saying, and go, this is our game, and this is what happens to the galaxy. 

Gaining superfluous information =/= adding to the story
Having "godly" intervention is not usually desirable in this type of story. Sure, you CAN introduce a character like him, with the argument that "LOL TECHNOLOGY THAT IS SO ADVANCED IS MAGIC", but at the end of the day, it's just bad form. There's a reason why Q in Star Trek had to be handled very carefully. Oh, and there was also a reason why Avatar's plot was ridiculed. 

[Grusome11]

I still don't understand why anyone defends this ending. You can like it, but it is poor writing on any level.

Just ask yourself: How good of a writer does it take to come up with something right out of left field to reslove the story?

Answer: Anyone can do it.

My ME3 ending: Magic unicorns come out of the 9th dimension to save the galaxy.

If you like story endings that don't make sense, there are even worst endings for ME3 right on this board in another thread (although I admit, it was hard for some of them to come up with a worst ending).

[AIR MOORE]

I still can't believe some people are resorting to "...you didn't understand the ending..."

I have yet to see a single person say this, and then go on to explicitly denote why and how I don't understand the ending...



Regardless everything from Bioware these days seems to be virtually hogwash.

These statements (taken at face value) clearly show BioWare is only hearing/understanding what they want to about the ending, and everything else they are putting their fingers in their ears and humming "la-la-lala-lala-la".

[Deventh]

Sorry..what? 200 years? Interesting...

[OH-UP-THIS!]

ed87 wrote...

If theyre going to 'run out of money' during development then what was the point of EA aquiring Bioware in the first place? Sounds like they were just trying to hit a certain profit margin with the game but failed, so now theyre blowing development money to try to save their fanbase, the brand, and their reputation

There's never enough time to do it right the first time, but there's always enough time to correct it later.

I've known about this statement for more than 40 years, but idiots still keep trying to bend the rule.

[cutegigi]

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Community Manager- They will not make a new ending, because that would be unfair to the people who liked the ending. The way they explained it was basically this: 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. 

da fuq ?
those already happy is obviously already happy with what they have. No need to do anything more.
Why not ADD something new so unhappy people can become happy, while those already happy can remain happy.

logical much ?

[ham89]

cutegigi wrote...

DOYOURLABS wrote...

Community Manager- They will not make a new ending, because that would be unfair to the people who liked the ending. The way they explained it was basically this: 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. 

da fuq ?
those already happy is obviously already happy with what they have. No need to do anything more.
Why not ADD something new so unhappy people can become happy, while those already happy can remain happy.

logical much ?

Because Bioware is still a company and is going to try make the most amount of money doing the least amount of work. Rewriting an entirely new ending would probably be more work than doing a 15 minute closure video.

Modifié par ham89, 11 avril 2012 - 07:20 .

[ham89]

Grusome11 wrote...

I still don't understand why anyone defends this ending. You can like it, but it is poor writing on any level.

Just ask yourself: How good of a writer does it take to come up with something right out of left field to reslove the story?

Answer: Anyone can do it.

My ME3 ending: Magic unicorns come out of the 9th dimension to save the galaxy.

If you like story endings that don't make sense, there are even worst endings for ME3 right on this board in another thread (although I admit, it was hard for some of them to come up with a worst ending).

 

I don't understand why people continue to slam this ending...I mean, I do, you just don't like it, but don't insult Bioware and tell them they wrote badly. Even if they did, I like it. I thought it made sense, for what information we've been given. technology that is near magical? (not your quote, had just realized, directed at that other dude). You don't know man. 

right! The star kid implies that whatever the star kid may be, takes what's troubling you the most from yuor mind, or something you've been thinking about and turns the hologram into that to present a visualization of the catalyst. (star kid because shepherd couldn't save him, I never cared for him, though.) Example! Legions consensus.

Modifié par ham89, 11 avril 2012 - 07:39 .

[Spectre Impersonator]

 By "Dev's vision" I think they mean "2 guys' vision" because Mac and Casey came up with it while everyone else wanted something good, like the fans.