439 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

Kuari999 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

So what you're saying is, if you skip stuff, or do the MP (which, again, is the only credible claim of lying that can be attributed to BioWare and should be rectified immediately), it's different than if you don't do either of those things? As in... not an "A, B, C ending" after all?


Mass Effect 3 Endings Guide - HEAVY SPOILERS 

Not A, B, C.

Its only barely different, if that, and there were specific statements regarding specific events, so they lead people to believe that these events had more effect then they really did, making it false advertising by its legal definition.  Look it up.

It's still different enough to not be quantified as an "A, B, C ending". There are multiple variations that refute that claim. Again, your expectations =/= BioWare lied.

[thunderhawk862002]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

thunderhawk862002 wrote...




Extinct like the Rachni were supposed to be? But look at that, more Rachni even if you killed the Queen.  I'm sure not every Quarian was on the fleet since there would be some doing their pilgrimage somewhere.  A genophage cure can always be remade by a different scientist if necessary, although it would take time.    I'll give you Earth being destroyed is a bit different, but what the real difference from Earth saved and Earth devastated beyond those few buildings at the end.  I guess that's up to speculation.

Edit: Not to mention how many people on Earth have already died anyways in the mean time before Shepard arrives?  No one knows.

So... the Reapers are going to genetically engineer Quarians again, to use them as foot soldiers during the next cycle where they harve... oh wait, you stop the Reapers. So... that comparison doesn't really make a ton of sense.

As for the genophage? As Mordin so succinctly says: "Had to be me. Someone else would have gotten it wrong."

Again, radically different. Different enough for YOUR standards? Obviously not. But that's not BioWare's fault.

The Illusive man also says the only way for humanity to survive is to control the Reapers.  Saren also said that for organic life to survive we needed to follow the Reapers.  The doctors also said Thane was supposed to die in two months... 6 months ago.   Need I go on?

So how do you tell from the ending cinematics that a few destroyed buldings means all buildings were devastated whereas if the buildings were normal that all other buildings were normal?  All we are shown is one little clip from one little area.  

95% of the ending cinematics are the same with only 3 seconds of implied differences between them. 

[Kuari999]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

It's still different enough to not be quantified as an "A, B, C ending". There are multiple variations that refute that claim. Again, your expectations =/= BioWare lied.

Not in any reasonable terms its not.  Its so insignificantly different it might as well be called A1, A2, A3...  and actually, if you really want to get down to it, customer expectations are part of what's covered under false advertising.  They gave enough specifics that they purposely deceived people, pure and simple.  Again, you don't have to like it, but that's the fact of the matter.

Modifié par Kuari999, 13 avril 2012 - 04:30 .

[thunderhawk862002]

I guess Mass Effect 2 had millions of endings considering all the variations you can have of squad mates dying or living. I think that's the most endings of any game ever.

Modifié par thunderhawk862002, 13 avril 2012 - 04:31 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

thunderhawk862002 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

thunderhawk862002 wrote...




Extinct like the Rachni were supposed to be? But look at that, more Rachni even if you killed the Queen.  I'm sure not every Quarian was on the fleet since there would be some doing their pilgrimage somewhere.  A genophage cure can always be remade by a different scientist if necessary, although it would take time.    I'll give you Earth being destroyed is a bit different, but what the real difference from Earth saved and Earth devastated beyond those few buildings at the end.  I guess that's up to speculation.

Edit: Not to mention how many people on Earth have already died anyways in the mean time before Shepard arrives?  No one knows.

So... the Reapers are going to genetically engineer Quarians again, to use them as foot soldiers during the next cycle where they harve... oh wait, you stop the Reapers. So... that comparison doesn't really make a ton of sense.

As for the genophage? As Mordin so succinctly says: "Had to be me. Someone else would have gotten it wrong."

Again, radically different. Different enough for YOUR standards? Obviously not. But that's not BioWare's fault.

The Illusive man also says the only way for humanity to survive is to control the Reapers.  Saren also said that for organic life to survive we needed to follow the Reapers.  The doctors also said Thane was supposed to die in two months... 6 months ago.   Need I go on?

So how do you tell from the ending cinematics that a few destroyed buldings means all buildings were devastated whereas if the buildings were normal that all other buildings were normal?  All we are shown is one little clip from one little area.  

95% of the ending cinematics are the same with only 3 seconds of implied differences between them. 

You mean, like this? 
  Where it clearly shows the Earth scoured in a giant wave of flame, killing all life and destroying everything on the planet? 

But that's "only three seconds of implied difference", right? 

[xReefeR]

I think even though alot of us are upset about the way the game ended, the majority of us would step in and support them because without them what else would we play.

Modern Warfare 3: Copy and pasted since COD 4. I understand that some of you enjoy this game but when it comes down to it its the samething with different weapons, maps, and killstreaks. Gets pretty monotonous.

[thunderhawk862002]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

thunderhawk862002 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

thunderhawk862002 wrote...




Extinct like the Rachni were supposed to be? But look at that, more Rachni even if you killed the Queen.  I'm sure not every Quarian was on the fleet since there would be some doing their pilgrimage somewhere.  A genophage cure can always be remade by a different scientist if necessary, although it would take time.    I'll give you Earth being destroyed is a bit different, but what the real difference from Earth saved and Earth devastated beyond those few buildings at the end.  I guess that's up to speculation.

Edit: Not to mention how many people on Earth have already died anyways in the mean time before Shepard arrives?  No one knows.

So... the Reapers are going to genetically engineer Quarians again, to use them as foot soldiers during the next cycle where they harve... oh wait, you stop the Reapers. So... that comparison doesn't really make a ton of sense.

As for the genophage? As Mordin so succinctly says: "Had to be me. Someone else would have gotten it wrong."

Again, radically different. Different enough for YOUR standards? Obviously not. But that's not BioWare's fault.

The Illusive man also says the only way for humanity to survive is to control the Reapers.  Saren also said that for organic life to survive we needed to follow the Reapers.  The doctors also said Thane was supposed to die in two months... 6 months ago.   Need I go on?

So how do you tell from the ending cinematics that a few destroyed buldings means all buildings were devastated whereas if the buildings were normal that all other buildings were normal?  All we are shown is one little clip from one little area.  

95% of the ending cinematics are the same with only 3 seconds of implied differences between them. 

You mean, like this? 
  Where it clearly shows the Earth scoured in a giant wave of flame, killing all life and destroying everything on the planet? 

But that's "only three seconds of implied difference", right? 

And what difference does it make for the human race if the Earth is destroyed or not.  The humans have plenty of colonies elsewhere to live on.  Plus how many humans are left a million, a biliion?  You don't know and I don't know.  Please explain how devastation is radically different from saving the Earth and how can you tell that from the cinematic?

[Father_Jerusalem]

Kuari999 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

It's still different enough to not be quantified as an "A, B, C ending". There are multiple variations that refute that claim. Again, your expectations =/= BioWare lied.

Not in any reasonable terms its not.  Its so insignificantly different it might as well be called A1, A2, A3...  and actually, if you really want to get down to it, customer expectations are part of what's covered under false advertising.  They gave enough specifics that they purposely deceived people, pure and simple.  Again, you don't have to like it, but that's the fact of the matter.

So, in your mind, there's literally zero difference in an ending where the Earth is destroyed and everyone onboard the Normandy dies in the crash, and an ending where the Earth lives, the Normandy crash survivors live, and Shepard lives? 

If ME3 says "Buy the epic conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy" and I expect that to mean that BioWare will buy me a unicorn, can I sue them for false advertising then? Given that, you know, customer expectations are part of what's covered...

[thunderhawk862002]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Kuari999 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

It's still different enough to not be quantified as an "A, B, C ending". There are multiple variations that refute that claim. Again, your expectations =/= BioWare lied.

Not in any reasonable terms its not.  Its so insignificantly different it might as well be called A1, A2, A3...  and actually, if you really want to get down to it, customer expectations are part of what's covered under false advertising.  They gave enough specifics that they purposely deceived people, pure and simple.  Again, you don't have to like it, but that's the fact of the matter.

So, in your mind, there's literally zero difference in an ending where the Earth is destroyed and everyone onboard the Normandy dies in the crash, and an ending where the Earth lives, the Normandy crash survivors live, and Shepard lives? 

If ME3 says "Buy the epic conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy" and I expect that to mean that BioWare will buy me a unicorn, can I sue them for false advertising then? Given that, you know, customer expectations are part of what's covered...

From the cinematic how can you tell they died?  Just because the extra scene isn't there? 

[Father_Jerusalem]

thunderhawk862002 wrote...


And what difference does it make for the human race if the Earth is destroyed or not.  The humans have plenty of colonies elsewhere to live on.  Plus how many humans are left a million, a biliion?  You don't know and I don't know.  Please explain how devastation is radically different from saving the Earth and how can you tell that from the cinematic?

Oh good grief. I tried. I really tried.I gave you evidence to show that there are radically different ways the game can play out. You ignore it. I show you YouTube evidence of what can happen in an ending where the Earth is destroyed, you say "Meh, screw Earth". There is literally nothing I can do to get you to accept reality.

Please, study this chart so you can understand why I'm not going to waste one more second of my life on you: Flowchart-to-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion-e1300206446831-634x882.jpg (634×882) 

[xReefeR]

This is off topic but i cant create new threads. Was wondering if someone could make one to ask bioware if its possible they can give us a release date on the next DLC. dont need to know the contents just want to know when to expect more new stuff.

[Father_Jerusalem]

xReefeR wrote...

This is off topic but i cant create new threads. Was wondering if someone could make one to ask bioware if its possible they can give us a release date on the next DLC. dont need to know the contents just want to know when to expect more new stuff.

The ending DLC is scheduled for "summer" right now, there's no indication of when in summer. Any other DLC is being pushed back for the time being while they work on the ending DLC.

[Kuari999]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

So, in your mind, there's literally zero difference in an ending where the Earth is destroyed and everyone onboard the Normandy dies in the crash, and an ending where the Earth lives, the Normandy crash survivors live, and Shepard lives? 

If ME3 says "Buy the epic conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy" and I expect that to mean that BioWare will buy me a unicorn, can I sue them for false advertising then? Given that, you know, customer expectations are part of what's covered...

To the first bit, the only ending I find any significant difference in is vaporization.  That is clear cut different.  The rest?  WOOOO!  Colors.

Ending A: Earth goes boom
Ending B: You drove away/destroyed the reapers with a colored explosion!  WEEE
Ending C: ...did I just turn everyone into the borg?

As for the second paragraph, you just love taking things far above and beyond what is logical, don't you?  The other aspect is that you have to provide proof why people would come to the conclusion.  Considering the unusual level of consistency in the expectations for the conclusion, its not something that can be simply written off.

Modifié par Kuari999, 13 avril 2012 - 04:45 .

[xReefeR]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

xReefeR wrote...

This is off topic but i cant create new threads. Was wondering if someone could make one to ask bioware if its possible they can give us a release date on the next DLC. dont need to know the contents just want to know when to expect more new stuff.

The ending DLC is scheduled for "summer" right now, there's no indication of when in summer. Any other DLC is being pushed back for the time being while they work on the ending DLC.

I knew about the ending DLC just wasnt sure if there was going to be anything between now and then. Didnt know they pushed everything back.

[thunderhawk862002]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

thunderhawk862002 wrote...


And what difference does it make for the human race if the Earth is destroyed or not.  The humans have plenty of colonies elsewhere to live on.  Plus how many humans are left a million, a biliion?  You don't know and I don't know.  Please explain how devastation is radically different from saving the Earth and how can you tell that from the cinematic?

Oh good grief. I tried. I really tried.I gave you evidence to show that there are radically different ways the game can play out. You ignore it. I show you YouTube evidence of what can happen in an ending where the Earth is destroyed, you say "Meh, screw Earth". There is literally nothing I can do to get you to accept reality.

Please, study this chart so you can understand why I'm not going to waste one more second of my life on you: Flowchart-to-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion-e1300206446831-634x882.jpg (634×882) 

Really?  Look at this video www.youtube.com/watch  Look at the Earth at 1:08.  They all look the same, exactly the same even across different colors.  Even after that red flame went by the Earth doesn't change, at all in the next scene.   Literally the difference between devestated and save ending is three seconds of some buildings in one particular area being set on fire. 3 seconds.  So that apparently means all buildings on Earth are like that? That's like saying all the buildings on Earth look like North Korea's after the Korean war. 

I say in the worst endings all the people on the Normandy are knocked out and not dead.  Where's the proof?  Ah that's right there is only speculation.

Modifié par thunderhawk862002, 13 avril 2012 - 04:54 .

[DadeLeviathan]

 Whether you agree with it or not, this isn't a matter of fans whining, it is a matter of bioware said something and fans did not feel that they delivered on it. And from a purely technical standpoint, the fans are right in this respect. Now they are right on a technicality here, I want to point that out. But when you get down to the bare bones of what false advertising is, they are correct. However, dozens of other game companies have been guilty of this exact thing. The worst that has happened has been public outcy and loss of game sales (Daikatana anyone?). 

If Bioware is punished somehow (which is highly, highly, unlikely because it would essentially open the doors for people to sue MacDonalds for their burgers not looking like the commercials), this could very change how games are marketed. 

Honestly, I don't think anything will come of it. Remember that the BBB is an organization, not an office of any power. They can 'punish,' businesses that belong to them, and give certain businesses various scores, but they can't actually levy any types of fines like the FTC could. And while the fans in this case are technically correct, they are correct in such a small way that the FTC ever picking up the case or even looking at it seriously would be very unlikely. 

[thunderhawk862002]

DadeLeviathan wrote...

 Whether you agree with it or not, this isn't a matter of fans whining, it is a matter of bioware said something and fans did not feel that they delivered on it. And from a purely technical standpoint, the fans are right in this respect. Now they are right on a technicality here, I want to point that out. But when you get down to the bare bones of what false advertising is, they are correct. However, dozens of other game companies have been guilty of this exact thing. The worst that has happened has been public outcy and loss of game sales (Daikatana anyone?). 

If Bioware is punished somehow (which is highly, highly, unlikely because it would essentially open the doors for people to sue MacDonalds for their burgers not looking like the commercials), this could very change how games are marketed. 

Honestly, I don't think anything will come of it. Remember that the BBB is an organization, not an office of any power. They can 'punish,' businesses that belong to them, and give certain businesses various scores, but they can't actually levy any types of fines like the FTC could. And while the fans in this case are technically correct, they are correct in such a small way that the FTC ever picking up the case or even looking at it seriously would be very unlikely. 

Actually there are some regulations on fast food commercials.  You have to use the actual weight of the beef patty in the commercial that's in the actual product.  The FTC should regulate that a lot better though.

[Drake_Hound]

People can do whatever they want cause you live in a western society , If you disagree with that .
Then sorry , maybe you disagree with your own opnion .
Same way Bioware can do whatever they want with there franchise and IP.
People are in the right to excersise there right , you cannot back one without backing the other .

That is why so many nowadays fails at politics and logic .
And invent the words like Ad Honiem , and other meaningless crap .
Cause it has no meaning , the world has become less grey , it is now more black and white extremes.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Kuari999 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

So, in your mind, there's literally zero difference in an ending where the Earth is destroyed and everyone onboard the Normandy dies in the crash, and an ending where the Earth lives, the Normandy crash survivors live, and Shepard lives? 

If ME3 says "Buy the epic conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy" and I expect that to mean that BioWare will buy me a unicorn, can I sue them for false advertising then? Given that, you know, customer expectations are part of what's covered...

To the first bit, the only ending I find any significant difference in is vaporization.  That is clear cut different.  The rest?  WOOOO!  Colors.

Ending A: Earth goes boom
Ending B: You drove away/destroyed the reapers with a colored explosion!  WEEE
Ending C: ...did I just turn everyone into the borg?

As for the second paragraph, you just love taking things far above and beyond what is logical, don't you?  The other aspect is that you have to provide proof why people would come to the conclusion.  Considering the unusual level of consistency in the expectations for the conclusion, its not something that can be simply written off.

So, again, despite there being multiple differences in simply how the Destroy ending plays out, not to mention the Control or Synthesis, you still say "Nothing but A, B, C."? Please read up and see the flowchart I linked and understand why I'm going to be done responding to you as well.

[Father_Jerusalem]

aLucidMind wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Kuari999 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

So what you're saying is, if you skip stuff, or do the MP (which, again, is the only credible claim of lying that can be attributed to BioWare and should be rectified immediately), it's different than if you don't do either of those things? As in... not an "A, B, C ending" after all?


Mass Effect 3 Endings Guide - HEAVY SPOILERS 

Not A, B, C.

Its only barely different, if that, and there were specific statements regarding specific events, so they lead people to believe that these events had more effect then they really did, making it false advertising by its legal definition.  Look it up.

It's still different enough to not be quantified as an "A, B, C ending". There are multiple variations that refute that claim. Again, your expectations =/= BioWare lied.

When they say "A, B, C" I think they're referring more to the three choices and how there were minute differences between the endings. Counting every possible ending, there are only six. While some things were resolved (like the Genophage and the Geth/Quarian conflict), they got no acknowledgement afterwards. While expectations were high, BioWare said many things that were, at the very least, very misleading. They had stated multiple times that the ending would be directly affected by what you did but the way everything was presented made it seem like how much you did mattered more than what you did. This is where the complaint about the choices being rendered pointless and disregarded, there only being six possible endings in-general makes that feeling stronger.

There have been a few things the lied about, but most of it was just very misleading. They had stated flat out that the Rachni would have an affect in the war, the way they worded it made it come off like that was an active role. The EMS made it seem more passive than active (so this is more a case of being misleading than an outright lying). They said the endings would be "radically different"; this is one of those "nobody is really wrong here" kind of things. You're right when you say this was more on our expectations; we took that to mean that they would be different as in getting to see many outcomes of galactic society. Seeing what our choices really did as opposed to just being a number on a scoreboard. However, we're also right in the sense that they were not "radically different", just slightly different when it comes to the scenes themselves. While the Earth being vaporized is radically different than the Reapers being controlled and everyone and everything left being spared, the problem is the presentation as well as the lack of a proper epilogue explaining the consequences of all our actions and choices. At least, this was one of my main concerns; I didn't like how it was presented overall and the fact that the ending destroys the narrative cohesion of the game, not to mention the entire trilogy. That is where my disappointment stems from.

BioWare lied on a few things and mislead us on many things. While our expectations should not have been high, it is reasonable that they were high because of BioWare's record with Mass Effect alone and the simple fact that they had a direct influence (Twitter being one of those means) in raising our expectations. You can't really say "your expectations were too high for your own good" when they made several promises and statements that they did not back up while also improperly wording them to make them sound like our expectations were what we were going to get. To be honest, I was willing to let BioWare slide on the ending if the DLC was good but I'm really not too sure with how the PR department has been acting and the fact that it took a month to remove the multiplayer sticky Jarrett Lee posted after deleting any thread that stated how false it was for weeks prior regardless of there just being one or many at the same time. While many customers [on both sides] weren't very mature, the PR department has hardly been all too mature. They have generally just been condescending and unprofessional at times. Thats where my somewhat pissy mood towards BioWare at the moment comes from lol.

And this is a very reasonable position, one which I understand wholeheartedly. Believe me when I say my expectations were very high as well, are the endings, as is, enough to meet those expectations? Clearly not. But they are enough to satisfy me. Even if we got no more DLC at all in the Mass Effect universe, I would still be content. But I DO understand where people are coming from, and I do try to explain WHY I'm content when people are actually interested and polite instead of demanding, so that maybe they can see my point of view. I won't try to force anyone to agree with me, but I'm willing to at least show them a different point of view.

If someone just flat out doesn't LIKE the ending, that's completely acceptable to me. We all have different tastes, that what makes this community great. While I may not have agreed with #Retake's position early on, I was more than willing to support them in the Child's Play donation drives because helping kids is ALWAYS a good thing. 

But things like filing complaints with the FTC and the BBB, threatening lawsuits, harrassing other people for disagreeing, putting up billboards... that kind of behavior is, to me, over the line. And that's what I take issue with.

Has BioWare's PR fumbled the ball in a lot of cases? Absolutely. That the MP sticky was allowed to stay for so long, in spite of overwhelming evidence that that claim was a lie, is asinine. It really is. I enjoy BioWare's games. All of them. And what I worry about is that people at BioWare are going to see all this massive outrage and just decide to stop making groundbreaking games and go to boring, insipid, forumlaic pieces of crap because they're "safe".

There's a quote from one of my favorite shows, The West Wing, that is how I feel about BioWare: "If we're gonna walk into walls, I want us running into 'em full speed." I don't WANT BioWare to play it safe, I want them to continue to take risks and make innovative, epic games. And I'm just worried that that won't happen anymore. That's why I defend them.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 13 avril 2012 - 06:27 .

[RaggieRags]

retic wrote...

 http://m.computerand..._medium=twitter

I have come to respect the opinions of many ME fans who hated the endings...but this is just too much. Does this mean we are now welcoming the age of "tour guide" gamerism, where whiners actually can force game developers everywhere to make changes on something they don't agree with?

I think misleading advertising is a long-time, widespread problem in the entire industry, and yes, people should complain about it. This has been long time coming. Overblown hype sells copies with minimum risk, and they'll keep on doing it as long as they can get away with it. There has been many times in the past when gamers should have objected, but better late than never.

[Drake_Hound]

aLucidMind wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

People can do whatever they want cause you live in a western society , If you disagree with that .
Then sorry , maybe you disagree with your own opnion .
Same way Bioware can do whatever they want with there franchise and IP.
People are in the right to excersise there right , you cannot back one without backing the other .

That is why so many nowadays fails at politics and logic .
And invent the words like Ad Honiem , and other meaningless crap .
Cause it has no meaning , the world has become less grey , it is now more black and white extremes.

Ad-hominem isn't a term that was just made up, let alone being "meaningless crap". The term 'ad hominem' is a Latin phrase meaning 'at the man' (the idea is that the attack is 'at the man', and not 'at the idea'). Quintilian - the Roman Grammar and Rhetoric teacher - uses the phrase (Institutio Oratoria.X), so clearly the expression was already well-known in Roman times.

And what does that mean when all we have is ideas or opnions , since we are debating about opnions or idea.
So what use does Ad honiem is being used nowadays ?
Cause somebody doesn´t agree with your idea or opnion ?
Real Life debates we never had to attack the person , if that person idea or beliefs contradict your own .
Or is too far from your own idea , you just move on .

Ad Honiem is now used as troll word or jehova witness word .
You know meaning I don´t know what to say , so I consider it a attack on my beliefs .
So in that way the word lost it meaning didn´t it ?

[Scott2998]

All this over a blog

From a PR rep (Director of Communications)

Who hasn't even played the game

Anyone remember that time when the supposed 'expert' went on Fox News to report that there are explicit, wild sex scenes in ME1? Then come to find out she never even played the game to begin with?