They aren't ignoring feedback, just not using it to change a game already released.
So what are they doing with this feedback? Now they'll know better than to introduce a new character in the final game of their next trilogy?
...I guess the DA team could stand to hear it.
As I'm not an employee of Bioware, I don't know what they are doing with the feedback, but I would hope that they're using it to not make the same mistakes in future products.
Well then why ask for player feedback at all? Why makes statements that literally state we created something with you.
Then make other statements like, we didn't know there was a demand for it.
If you tell give me feedback on what we can do better, the people giving you that feedback will generally believe that you will take that into consideration. Unless your just asking to make them feel important,
Yes, but some people interpret "please give us feedback"n as "tell us what to do and we'll for sure do it." Some people believe "I disagree with what you did" is shorthand for "you have to fix things to my specification." And some believe "I suggest this" to be the same as "AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!" This is where discussions start to break down and why so many unproductive arguments happen in the community.
Whats the point of asking for feedback when you just ignore it then? We told you we wanted more endings to reflect our choices and you release a statement saying "We arent changing the endings!". If the author of Sherlock Holmes did what you guys have done, the series wouldn't have continued because he would have killed Sherlock off.
Please see my post regarding the nature of feedback earlier in this thread.
They already do this. You here on the method they use already called their forums. It is ignorant of you to assume they do not know what peoples issues are with the ending. The difference is just because their solution they agreed with is not the one you might specifically wanted you assume they are either not listening or need more feedback methods. Its fallacy. The reality is they simply agreed with other customers not you.
I understand that there are people who like the ending and thats fine, but those people are apparently in the minority. The majority of fans, a multitude of gaming and non gaming publications, the 'Better Business Bureau' and even other developers say that the ending was not up to scratch. Heck, if companies like Blizzard are actually making fun of the ending, you know something is very wrong.
As a business, Bioware should side with the majority of customers, otherwise they will find their business decreasing.
If they do that then your screwed. The majority of gamers do not like RPGs, they do not like Biowares products. Your principle of cater to majority screws you over long term. If they catered to what majority of gamers wanted instead of what Bioware wanted to do then they would not be making RPGs in the first place. There would be no ME and there would be no DA. There would be Modern Effect 3 and Battlemass 3. Either they are allowed to make what they want or they go down what majority of gamers want, if go down what gamers want you'll find yourself getting in worse position. They struck a balance of creating what they want and asking for feedback of which they choose what they take onboard, adding it to future products or DLC and not changing the core game.
They already do this. You here on the method they use already called their forums. It is ignorant of you to assume they do not know what peoples issues are with the ending. The difference is just because their solution they agreed with is not the one you might specifically wanted you assume they are either not listening or need more feedback methods. Its fallacy. The reality is they simply agreed with other customers not you.
I understand that there are people who like the ending and thats fine, but those people are apparently in the minority. The majority of fans, a multitude of gaming and non gaming publications, the 'Better Business Bureau' and even other developers say that the ending was not up to scratch. Heck, if companies like Blizzard are actually making fun of the ending, you know something is very wrong.
As a business, Bioware should side with the majority of customers, otherwise they will find their business decreasing.
If they do that then your screwed. The majority of gamers do not like RPGs, they do not like Biowares products. Your principle of cater to majority screws you over long term. IF they catered to what majority of gamers wanted instead of what Bioware wanted to do then they would not be making RPGs in the first place. There would be no ME and there would be no DA. There would be Modern Effect 3 and Battlemass 3. Either they are allowed to make what they want or they go down what majority of gamers want, if go down what gamers want you'll find yourself getting in worse position.
The majority of Bioware's customers. Bioware's customers loved DA:O. DA2 was made to cater to the majority of gamers. They might've picked up a few who liked the hack-and-slash, but they lost many of their original fanbase. I don't know how many they'll win back with DA3.
(I know I'm not pre-ordering it. Learned my lesson with DA2).
Bioware's customers also loved ME1. With ME2, it looked like they found a nice balance between Bioware's customers and casual gamers. Then they went over to the other side with ME3. No telling how many of their original fanbase they'll lose with this one.
They already do this. You here on the method they use already called their forums. It is ignorant of you to assume they do not know what peoples issues are with the ending. The difference is just because their solution they agreed with is not the one you might specifically wanted you assume they are either not listening or need more feedback methods. Its fallacy. The reality is they simply agreed with other customers not you.
I understand that there are people who like the ending and thats fine, but those people are apparently in the minority. The majority of fans, a multitude of gaming and non gaming publications, the 'Better Business Bureau' and even other developers say that the ending was not up to scratch. Heck, if companies like Blizzard are actually making fun of the ending, you know something is very wrong.
As a business, Bioware should side with the majority of customers, otherwise they will find their business decreasing.
If they do that then your screwed. The majority of gamers do not like RPGs, they do not like Biowares products. Your principle of cater to majority screws you over long term. IF they catered to what majority of gamers wanted instead of what Bioware wanted to do then they would not be making RPGs in the first place. There would be no ME and there would be no DA. There would be Modern Effect 3 and Battlemass 3. Either they are allowed to make what they want or they go down what majority of gamers want, if go down what gamers want you'll find yourself getting in worse position. They struck a blanace of creating what they want and asking for feedback of which they choose what they take onboard, adding it to future products or DLC. NOT changing the core game.
I meant the majority of Bioware's Customers, i.e their loyal fans. The majority of 'gamers' these days seem to be unintelligent brutes, pleasing them would of course do no good at all.
Also the "already released" argument holds less water in this area of DLC and patches. I don't see how they can in one hand claim changes can't be made because it's "already been released" and in the other hand actively produce DLC that does change the nature/story of "already released" games.
ESPECIALLY, considering bioware themselves has already made comments, in regards to DA:2, implying they don't consider the actual developmental period of a game over until there are no more plans for patches or DLC.
The idea of patches is to make a game more stable, not to introduce changes to the story.
DLC, as far as I understand it, is not to change the story of an already released game, but instead to add to the story. I don't recall any of the DLC Bioware has released for it's games, changing the story of the game it was added to in a substantial way. I haven't played all of the DLC for every Bioware game, I will admit that. But what I have [played doesn't affect the ending of the story in the game it is part of.
I will also admit that I don't know what most other developers have done with DLC, however, as far as I know, most adds to the stories and doesn't change them completely. Those that do are exceptions rather than what DLC was intended for (a way to make additional money by adding to the story)
This thread topic doesn't make much sense. Regardless of "feedback", at the end of the day, Mass Effect is BioWare's "story", and they'd tell it the way they want to. You think J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings heavilly based on how his readers wanted the story to progress? That wouldn't make much sense, would it?
The third installment in Lord of the Rings didn't suck
Well then why ask for player feedback at all? Why makes statements that literally state we created something with you.
Then make other statements like, we didn't know there was a demand for it.
If you tell give me feedback on what we can do better, the people giving you that feedback will generally believe that you will take that into consideration. Unless your just asking to make them feel important,
Yes, but some people interpret "please give us feedback"n as "tell us what to do and we'll for sure do it." Some people believe "I disagree with what you did" is shorthand for "you have to fix things to my specification." And some believe "I suggest this" to be the same as "AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!" This is where discussions start to break down and why so many unproductive arguments happen in the community.
Whats the point of asking for feedback when you just ignore it then? We told you we wanted more endings to reflect our choices and you release a statement saying "We arent changing the endings!". If the author of Sherlock Holmes did what you guys have done, the series wouldn't have continued because he would have killed Sherlock off.
Please see my post regarding the nature of feedback earlier in this thread.
They aren't ignoring feedback, just not using it to change a game already released.
Then whats the point?
As I have said a number of times in this thread, the point is so that they don't make the same mistake in future games. Yes, that is changing a game, but it is not changing a game that is already released.
The consequences are built into the variations in the cutscenes. And the endings aren't A B C as they have the variations in the cutscenes.
I agree that what we were told would be wildly different endings, aren't wildly different, but the choices do make changes to the ending. One word was wrong, the word wildly.
I feel I must point out that I am not defending how it was done, just saying that we were given endings that varied with our choices. I'm sure that if whoever it was that said it could go back and not say the word wildly, they would.
Although, when considered from the perspective of somone in the universe of the game, I imagine it could be said that there is a large difference between being vaporised or not or becoming part synthetic or carrying on as before the reapers arrived, but without the mass relays. Maybe that's what they meant by wildly different.
Again, you are factually incorrect. This is not a difference of opinion.
The viarances in the endings are not based upon the decissions you have made - they are based entirely on your EMS score, which reduces all collections and decisions into a numeral value, a value that can be aquired and suplimented through other means.
Again, this is not consequence of choice, it's wether or not you chose to game the system.
To speak of this from a hacker perspective, you could go through the entire game making any decision you want, hacked save editor to give you an effective EMS of 4k, and the game would not know the diffence past the 'final farewell' this is an ultimate letdown on the promises made.
And if we're going to argue that if the endings weren't Wildly different, then I am going to amend my statment: This was a game with 1 ending - and a bunch of tacked on variables that ultimately gave no impact on the player's experience. There is no follow up to tell you how choising A, B, or C went. Just a coupel of differences in cutscenes in regards to color, the state of earth (varying from burt to a crisp to not-so ruined) whether or not the citidel blows, and who walks out of the Normandy.
1 Ending, 17 contrived variables - none of which reflect the decissions you made throughout the decision or game, but rather the number you managed to raise legitimately or through hacking, and a choice between A B C.
In ME2, you can hack to make sure Tali isn't loyal. But she can still die (or even survive!) in any different number of ways depending on your choices, and if she's part of your final squad at the collector base, and you diddn't have another loyal member with you - guess what? You died too.
This thread topic doesn't make much sense. Regardless of "feedback", at the end of the day, Mass Effect is BioWare's "story", and they'd tell it the way they want to. You think J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings heavilly based on how his readers wanted the story to progress? That wouldn't make much sense, would it?
The third installment in Lord of the Rings didn't suck
There are plenty of people that think it should have ended when Sauron was defeated and Aragorn was crowned and not gone on, back to the Shire and then on to when Bilbo and Frodo leave Middle Earth.
I'm not one of those people, but I think this is what tetsutsuru means
They already do this. You here on the method they use already called their forums. It is ignorant of you to assume they do not know what peoples issues are with the ending. The difference is just because their solution they agreed with is not the one you might specifically wanted you assume they are either not listening or need more feedback methods. Its fallacy. The reality is they simply agreed with other customers not you.
I understand that there are people who like the ending and thats fine, but those people are apparently in the minority. The majority of fans, a multitude of gaming and non gaming publications, the 'Better Business Bureau' and even other developers say that the ending was not up to scratch. Heck, if companies like Blizzard are actually making fun of the ending, you know something is very wrong.
As a business, Bioware should side with the majority of customers, otherwise they will find their business decreasing.
If they do that then your screwed. The majority of gamers do not like RPGs, they do not like Biowares products. Your principle of cater to majority screws you over long term. IF they catered to what majority of gamers wanted instead of what Bioware wanted to do then they would not be making RPGs in the first place. There would be no ME and there would be no DA. There would be Modern Effect 3 and Battlemass 3. Either they are allowed to make what they want or they go down what majority of gamers want, if go down what gamers want you'll find yourself getting in worse position.
The majority of Bioware's customers. Bioware's customers loved DA:O. DA2 was made to cater to the majority of gamers. They might've picked up a few who liked the hack-and-slash, but they lost many of their original fanbase. I don't know how many they'll win back with DA3.
(I know I'm not pre-ordering it. Learned my lesson with DA2).
Bioware's customers also loved ME1. With ME2, it looked like they found a nice balance between Bioware's customers and casual gamers. Then they went over to the other side with ME3. No telling how many of their original fanbase they'll lose with this one.
Does not work, your limiting to those who already bought it is silly. There are more potential customers than current customers. They would do better to listen to them if goal was to make money. Every potential is potentially a Bioware customer. The majority of gamers vs majority of customers who already bought the product does simply not work because they already bought the product. When the next title comes around many of those will still buy it like said earlier you only have yourselves to blame for in the past many occassions people have made exact same threats about boycotts and cancelling pre-orders or not buying more titles yet year on year ME makes more sales not less.
DA was more profitable due to less invested time and money, as a test case of seeing how radical the changes could be used in one title, by limiting the resources allocated it mean't they suffered no major damage outside perception. This perception due to the nature of this specific fanbase proven time and time again tends to disappear between each product in most cases. People tend to judge each product separatly take for example myself as one who did not enjoy DA2 at all. Come DA3 I will be interested to see what they create and might buy that just like if vist the DA2 forums you can see same names of people who disliked it saying they will wait see how turns out and will buy if like look of it.
The simple fact is due to the actions of threats every single time anything is annouced that some don't like they resort to threats about not buying Biowares products, when turns out they come on next week and have it registered to their account so often you lost credability within the framework of that individual threat as a group. It is a shame that hardly any of you who use such tactics stick to what you say but thats the reality of it, your own worst enemy because use so much huff and puff yet lack follow through each time.
Yes, but some people interpret "please give us feedback"n as "tell us what to do and we'll for sure do it." Some people believe "I disagree with what you did" is shorthand for "you have to fix things to my specification." And some believe "I suggest this" to be the same as "AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!" This is where discussions start to break down and why so many unproductive arguments happen in the community.
Whats the point of asking for feedback when you just ignore it then? We told you we wanted more endings to reflect our choices and you release a statement saying "We arent changing the endings!". If the author of Sherlock Holmes did what you guys have done, the series wouldn't have continued because he would have killed Sherlock off.
They listened, they made choice how they wanted to deal with it. Your the one not listening to them.
Yes, thats right I'M the one not listening. Thats why why ive been following Bioware's Twitter feed, constantly checking news about Bioware's response and why I basicaly quoted their blog post about not adding endings.
You are SO good at analysing people over the internet.
I'll put it same way you did then, it's ignoring what they have told you. They told you they listened, they told you they are going with clarification which even members of retake and others have asked for. They told you that they are not replcing the endings but in reality that is just one of the many things people asked for. You have no proof that the majority wants a rewrite out of the 3.5+ million customer. You have a few biased polls with thousands not millions who cared enough to take part.
I'm sorry, you need PROOF that the majority of people who saw the ending thought it was crap?! You must be new to BSN. My original point still stands, actions speak louder than words, you can say that you listen, but if you don't acknowledge the problems which we have told them OVER AND OVER again e.g. Starbrat and different coloured explosions, then there is no point to pretending that your customer's opinion matters.
Yes, but some people interpret "please give us feedback"n as "tell us what to do and we'll for sure do it." Some people believe "I disagree with what you did" is shorthand for "you have to fix things to my specification." And some believe "I suggest this" to be the same as "AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!" This is where discussions start to break down and why so many unproductive arguments happen in the community.
Whats the point of asking for feedback when you just ignore it then? We told you we wanted more endings to reflect our choices and you release a statement saying "We arent changing the endings!". If the author of Sherlock Holmes did what you guys have done, the series wouldn't have continued because he would have killed Sherlock off.
They listened, they made choice how they wanted to deal with it. Your the one not listening to them.
Yes, thats right I'M the one not listening. Thats why why ive been following Bioware's Twitter feed, constantly checking news about Bioware's response and why I basicaly quoted their blog post about not adding endings.
You are SO good at analysing people over the internet.
I'll put it same way you did then, it's ignoring what they have told you. They told you they listened, they told you they are going with clarification which even members of retake and others have asked for. They told you that they are not replcing the endings but in reality that is just one of the many things people asked for. You have no proof that the majority wants a rewrite out of the 3.5+ million customer. You have a few biased polls with thousands not millions who cared enough to take part.
I'm sorry, you need PROOF that the majority of people who saw the ending thought it was crap?! You must be new to BSN. My original point still stands, actions speak louder than words, you can say that you listen, but if you don't acknowledge the problems which we have told them OVER AND OVER again e.g. Starbrat and different coloured explosions, then there is no point to pretending that your customer's opinion matters.
You proved my point about ignoring. You ignored what it is I said.
I did not say anything about how many liked it, I said how many want a complete rewrite.
Ok, I get BW understanding of "feedback". You agree with feedback that you like and dismiss what you don't like. Convenient.
Makes it kind of pointless for players to give any to you though. Well, at least it will save me from wasting my time.
Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 12 avril 2012 - 09:29 .
This thread topic doesn't make much sense. Regardless of "feedback", at the end of the day, Mass Effect is BioWare's "story", and they'd tell it the way they want to. You think J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings heavilly based on how his readers wanted the story to progress? That wouldn't make much sense, would it?
The third installment in Lord of the Rings didn't suck
I think Vigil on Ilos states that a reaper is left behind during each cycle. Part 1
Part 2
Long conversation watching them again.
Sovereign only docked at the Citadel because the signal falied. Had other things like the Catalyst had failed to operate prior to this cycle the Reapers would have known and probably attempted to free it.
"They are alien unknowable perhaps they need slaves or resources. More likely they are driven by motives and goals organic beings cannot hope to understand." LOL
"In the end what does it matter your survival depends on stopping them... not in understanding them."
[/quote]
I was suggesting that the catalyst did only fail this cycle, the protheans were taken by surprise and only modified the citadel later if I remember correctly. But if a reaper is left behind every cycle then my hypothesis of Sovreign being their answer to that doesn't fit anyway. Plus they wouldn't know that it wouldn't work, unless they'd checked the citadel and then decided that they couldn't undo what the protheans had done.
Maybe either I was right about the crucible not being the reapers creator or another theory (that I've just come up with) is that the reaper left behind was a backup plan. Like the Alpha relay was the back up plan to the citadel.
This is the part where Vigil talks about the keepers, Prothean sabotage, Sovereign's failed signal. [/quote]
Okay, so a reaper is left behind every cycle then sends a signal, via the citadel. I guess I have to either go back to the catalyst isn't the creator as it doesn't explicitly say that or come up with another theory. Since the reaper obviously wasn't the back up plan either.
Either way, I won't deny it's bad writing, but it also doesn't specifically contradict anything from previous lore (which I think was one of my earlier points in this conversation.)
[/quote] [/quote] [/quote] [/quote] [/quote]
Well if you look at the Citadel suddenly being the Catalyst and not just a habitable mass relay to dark space. In the second video it talks of the Keepers evolving to a point where they only listen to the signal from the Citadel not Sovereign itself. That is why Sovereign sends a signal to the Citadel then the signal is sent to the Keepers then the Keepers open the relay. Still if there is an entity that claims the Citadel is a part of itself how did it get reprogrammed? Realistically the Catalyst should be a part of the Citadel as if the Citadel is a living relay.
If they wanted to go about the whole Reaper creator business it is a lot less contradictory and convoluted had its location been in dark space where the Reapers hibernated. They kept their Collector experiments hidden there it would only make sense to keep your creator/controller and its station (that is a part of a means to control or destroy) you in a safe location. I don't see how this doesn't contradict. It was poor writing, this is why the ending falls short on so many levels and really isn't fitting to BioWare and the series itself. They have done better even in this same game. It seems they ran out of time rushed out an ending and are just standing behind it so BIoWare and EA don't look bad.
I look at the Tuchanka mission which is written extremely well and was executed well with gameplay. This is probably one of the most well crafted missions, it delivered on so many levels. It is probably my favorite mission in the game. The scene where Mordin sacrificed himself to stop the genophage and the "Vigil" music was playing as the Normandy crew looked on with hope. This was the most memorable scene to me it sent shivers down my spine. It was truly artistic it stayed true to the game and the series itself. It had a lot of substance.
The main theme of Mass Effect has been arguably "unity through diversity". Your main goal has always been stop the Reapers no matter the cost even if everyone dies trying. Shepard when presented with this sudden change in theme and goal now being organics vs. synthetics. He doesn't argue he just accepts that this is the reality of the situation when there is clearly evidence proving otherwise. He didn't accept Sovereign's or Saren's attempts to deter him. This I would say is a contradiction of Shepard's character from everything up to this point (regardless of you being Paragon or Renegade).
Because they're making the game and not designing it by committee. Exactly what right do you have to participate in the actual game creation process when it's their game??? If you want to have a say in designing things BEFORE a game comes out, try a Kickstarter project where your dollars buy you that right. Otherwise, it's their story to do what they want with while they're busy making the game.
Because they're making the game and not designing it by committee. Exactly what right do you have to participate in the actual game creation process when it's their game??? If you want to have a say in designing things BEFORE a game comes out, try a Kickstarter project where your dollars buy you that right. Otherwise, it's their story to do what they want with while they're busy making the game.
Yeah, great.... That wasn't what the OP was suggesting, though.
Ok, I get BW understanding of "feedback". You agree with feedback that you like and dismiss what you don't like. Convenient. Makes it kind of pointless for players to give any to you though. Well, at least it will save me from wasting my time.
Feedback is taken on board for DLC and future products not retrospectivley altering what they already released and distributed. This is how they have always done it and how they always will. People expecting otherwise are only setting themselves up for disappointment. Their fault for assuming otherwise. It is Biowares franchise, their creation and they have every right to decide what feedback they choose to use or not.
They already do this. You here on the method they use already called their forums. It is ignorant of you to assume they do not know what peoples issues are with the ending. The difference is just because their solution they agreed with is not the one you might specifically wanted you assume they are either not listening or need more feedback methods. Its fallacy. The reality is they simple agreed with other customers not you.
I'm not discussing who is agreeing with who, did you read my post? You are arguing against surveys, which would give Bioware even more telemetry about what their customers want. I am arguing that big, successful companies have been doing surveys and will continue to do surveys because they work and they make sense. This forum is no replacement for surveys. Why do you think Bioware does telementry through their game engine? Surveys would be the logical compliment.
If Bioware had included a survey at the end of their game designed by someone who knows how to make a survey, the feedback would be much more precise and they could know what to priortize for their next product. The forum here is a tool, but a hard-to-quantify tool.
And, again, you're wasting your time here trying to tell unhappy customers that they should be happy. You will never succeed. I can only guess you're arguing with them to, I don't know, scratch an itch you have for arguing?
Exactly. It's called 'marketing research'.
Good marketing research turns out better products. Better products means repeat customers. And people opening their wallets trumps "artistic vision" and "artistic integrity" in any case. Or, at least it had better, when you are owned by a large corporation like Electronic Arts, whose main concern is sales figures and not a developer's "vision" for a product.
The consequences are built into the variations in the cutscenes. And the endings aren't A B C as they have the variations in the cutscenes.
I agree that what we were told would be wildly different endings, aren't wildly different, but the choices do make changes to the ending. One word was wrong, the word wildly.
I feel I must point out that I am not defending how it was done, just saying that we were given endings that varied with our choices. I'm sure that if whoever it was that said it could go back and not say the word wildly, they would.
Although, when considered from the perspective of somone in the universe of the game, I imagine it could be said that there is a large difference between being vaporised or not or becoming part synthetic or carrying on as before the reapers arrived, but without the mass relays. Maybe that's what they meant by wildly different.
Again, you are factually incorrect. This is not a difference of opinion.
The viarances in the endings are not based upon the decissions you have made - they are based entirely on your EMS score, which reduces all collections and decisions into a numeral value, a value that can be aquired and suplimented through other means.
Again, this is not consequence of choice, it's wether or not you chose to game the system.
Your EMS score is based on the decisions you make. It fluctuates up and down as you make those decisions. Also, you decide what to do in the other games therefore, it's still based on your decisions.
To speak of this from a hacker perspective, you could go through the entire game making any decision you want, hacked save editor to give you an effective EMS of 4k, and the game would not know the diffence past the 'final farewell' this is an ultimate letdown on the promises made.
Hacking a save file is not something that Bioware can account for in it's developement as there's always going to be someone who does it to give themselves an advantage at one point or another. They can't realistically be expected to design something takes this into account. Whatever system they chose, there would be someone who hacked their save file to change their in game decisions. Even if it was just to see exactly what circumstances led to what ending.
And if we're going to argue that if the endings weren't Wildly different, then I am going to amend my statment: This was a game with 1 ending - and a bunch of tacked on variables that ultimately gave no impact on the player's experience. There is no follow up to tell you how choising A, B, or C went. Just a coupel of differences in cutscenes in regards to color, the state of earth (varying from burt to a crisp to not-so ruined) whether or not the citidel blows, and who walks out of the Normandy.
1 Ending, 17 contrived variables - none of which reflect the decissions you made throughout the decision or game, but rather the number you managed to raise legitimately or through hacking, and a choice between A B C.
No, in story terms there are three basic endings, Destroy, Control and Synthesis with differing consequences for each depending on your EMS, which as I have pointed out is based on your decisions. For example, with destroy you can have everything on Earth destroyed, reapers and buildings destroyed or just reapers destroyed with Shepard either living or dying in hte last one. Each makes a difference in terms of the story universe.
In ME2, you can hack to make sure Tali isn't loyal. But she can still die (or even survive!) in any different number of ways depending on your choices, and if she's part of your final squad at the collector base, and you diddn't have another loyal member with you - guess what? You died.
THAT's the kind of variables ME3 lacks.
I've never said that I think ME3's variables are done well, just that they have been done.
Retour en haut
