5087 réponses à ce sujet

[edisnooM]

MrFob wrote...

I thought the point of that scene was to set the stage for the selling of DLC.

I guess that makes DLC the new Buzz-word.

I see what you did there. 

[edisnooM]

Seijin8 wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

When I first finished the game, I originally didn't get the stargazer scene. Since then, I've come to realize that the point of the scene was to have Buzz Aldrin in it.

And the joke there is that he could have easily been a support character in one of the Priority: Earth missions.  Shellshock and an "I've seen s**t that would terrify a Reaper" attitude would have covered for the apparent lack of voice-over talent.  Instead he got a meaningless scene at the end of an ultimately meaningless ending.

So, even granting that the reason was simply to have him there (which honestly, was cool), he was poorly utilized.

He was also given one of the creepiest sounding lines in Mass Effect.

The man walked on the moon for crying out loud, give him something better than old guy telling a story.

[KitaSaturnyne]

edisnooM wrote...

He was also given one of the creepiest sounding lines in Mass Effect.

The man walked on the moon for crying out loud, give him something better than old guy telling a story.

And, for that matter, a scene that means something.

[Seijin8]

That stargazer scene is a mess... its been said before, but the silhouette of the kid is just a scaled down version of gramps. The head is way too small and the other body proportions are messed up.

So then I was thinking they didn't have time to make a child asset, but of course they did have one: the Catalyst and the kid in the beginning.

But then I was thinking: If it was *exactly* the same silhouette, the IT people's heads would have exploded.

[KitaSaturnyne]

Oh God. Then I'd be even more ticked about IT than I already am.

You know, I've never seen an IT-er who was mad at BioWare for making an ending that's even more incomplete than it is in its non-IT form.

Don't know if I said that well.

Non-IT ending: Incomplete, unsatisfactory.

IT ending: More incomplete than non-IT ending.

Did IT-ers think that BioWare would be releasing the rest of the ending later or something? Why wouldn't they be mad about its incompleteness?

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 18 mai 2012 - 04:53 .

[edisnooM]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

Oh God. Then I'd be even more ticked about IT than I already am.

You know, I've never seen an IT-er who was mad at BioWare for making an ending that's even more complete than it is in its non-IT form.

Don't know if I said that well.

Non-IT ending: Incomplete, unsatisfactory.

IT ending: More incomplete than non-IT ending.

Did IT-ers think that BioWare would be releasing the rest of the ending later or something? Why wouldn't they be mad about its incompleteness?

Well back when I first beat ME3 that's sort of what I thought. I figured it had something to do with the leaked script and the desire to change it unexpectedly (I hadn't seen or read anything from leaked script yet). It just baffled me that BioWare could have released something like this, with such glaring plot holes *cough*Normandy*cough*. I figured they had to have some sort of ace up their sleeve. 

Now however my naivete has been stripped away. 

Edit: Also I thought it would be free, or else I would have been quite mad.

Modifié par edisnooM, 18 mai 2012 - 04:37 .

[Seijin8]

Another generally insightful thread that hasn't yet erupted into a flame war. Discusses the game's failings from a developer's point of view:  http://social.biowar.../index/12077069

EDIT:  On further reading of the posted thread, a theme that is being explored is whether or not BW (the team) intentionally released a poor ending as a message to EA, ultimately knowing they would get a second crack at it and perhaps leverage future freedom to manage games their own way.

I'd really like to believe this.  It casts many of the utterly ridiculous statements made by various BW devs into a very different light, and one that they couldn't come out and say was a jab at their bosses.

I'm not sure I believe it, but I would like to.

Modifié par Seijin8, 18 mai 2012 - 05:02 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Seijin8 wrote...

Another generally insightful thread that hasn't yet erupted into a flame war. Discusses the game's failings from a developer's point of view:  http://social.biowar.../index/12077069

EDIT:  On further reading of the posted thread, a theme that is being explored is whether or not BW (the team) intentionally released a poor ending as a message to EA, ultimately knowing they would get a second crack at it and perhaps leverage future freedom to manage games their own way.

I'd really like to believe this.  It casts many of the utterly ridiculous statements made by various BW devs into a very different light, and one that they couldn't come out and say was a jab at their bosses.

I'm not sure I believe it, but I would like to.

Seems dubious at best. When an employee does a half-assed job as a form of protest, they don't get more freedom. They get fired.

[edisnooM]

Seijin8 wrote...

Another generally insightful thread that hasn't yet erupted into a flame war. Discusses the game's failings from a developer's point of view:  http://social.biowar.../index/12077069

EDIT:  On further reading of the posted thread, a theme that is being explored is whether or not BW (the team) intentionally released a poor ending as a message to EA, ultimately knowing they would get a second crack at it and perhaps leverage future freedom to manage games their own way.

I'd really like to believe this.  It casts many of the utterly ridiculous statements made by various BW devs into a very different light, and one that they couldn't come out and say was a jab at their bosses.

I'm not sure I believe it, but I would like to.

An interesting thought, especially if there was external pressure to take the game in a certain way. Maybe they decided to give EA what they asked for, knowing what the result would be?

But, it seems....I dunno unprofessional? On the one hand it's tempting to believe the flaws were there of deliberate intent, but on the other it seems like they'd be using fans as leverage which is kind of a nefarious move.

If it was deliberate maybe the underestimated what the fallout would be.

[Seijin8]

@ edisnooM: We're getting "nefarious" either way. This is the flavor of nefarious I would prefer

[edisnooM]

Ha, "I'll take some nefarious with a side of draconian. Oh and hold the malevolence."

[MrFob]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...
Seems dubious at best. When an employee does a half-assed job as a form of protest, they don't get more freedom. They get fired.

I guess the idea is that EA wouldn't know that it was a protest. In principle BW would have done what EA wanted them to do only to be able to come back to them after the disaster and say: "see, that didn't work so let's try it our way." They would then proceed to go back to Edmonton, have a good laugh and make the most astonishing EC we have ever seen because they masterminded their way out of EA's influence.

That makes IT sound straight forward though. I very much doubt this is what happened. Especially because in that case they'd have no reason whatsoever to hold on to the existing ending in any way.

I also think that as interesting as the linked thread is, it is drawing the line between EA and BW a bit too clearly and is ignoring that, as we discussed here earlier, the narrative problem that we experience in the last 10 minutes has it's origins throughout the game structure.

Modifié par MrFob, 18 mai 2012 - 05:26 .

[Seijin8]

Another interesting point from this post: http://social.biowar.../index/12077069

The post is itself good, but got me to thinking... This really does generate the basis for the Control ending, and does so from the perspective of a character we have (maybe) come to trust. Legion disseminated his individual understanding to fracture the groupthink of the Geth and make them perceive things as he did. It didn't rob them of freedom; it created the basis for peace.

This idea led me to consider different throughlines and their ultimate impact on the ending. Maybe the original "16 ending" statement was meant to reflect that choices made throughout several games would ultimately create the available options at the finale (assuming we still get Endotron-3000 and its host, Monty Catalyst).

In this variation of gameply, getting the Control ending would have required: rewriting the Geth in Legion's loyalty mission, success in Tali's loyalty mission such that in ME3 it was possible to reconcile the two and see that this form of individuality dissemination was able to bring about peace.

Causes me to wonder what sorts of other options might have become available based on long-ranging decisions.

And each new SP DLC could offer a new outcome choice through its unique play arc (hopefully hinging on prior ME2 content and ME1 choices) that creates a new ending possibility.

I'm not sure how these would be presented. There would have to be some mechanic to sound out the player's preferences before the finale. The dialogue with Catalyst sucks enough with the three choices given, and I wouldn't want to suffer through 16 of these, lol.

Modifié par Seijin8, 18 mai 2012 - 05:35 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Seijin8 wrote...

And each new SP DLC could offer a new outcome choice through its unique play arc (hopefully hinging on prior ME2 content and ME1 choices) that creates a new ending possibility.

Not to sidetrack you, but I've been given the impression that other than the EC, all future DLCs are going to be MP-based, rather than the single player side of things.

[edisnooM]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

And each new SP DLC could offer a new outcome choice through its unique play arc (hopefully hinging on prior ME2 content and ME1 choices) that creates a new ending possibility.

Not to sidetrack you, but I've been given the impression that other than the EC, all future DLCs are going to be MP-based, rather than the single player side of things.

Which makes me wonder why exactly we're supposed to hold onto our savegames forever? Collectors item maybe?

"And here ladies and gentlemen, a real treat. A rare first generation Mass Effect 3 save file. It comes in three colours, and a range of emotions." 

[KitaSaturnyne]

edisnooM wrote...

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

And each new SP DLC could offer a new outcome choice through its unique play arc (hopefully hinging on prior ME2 content and ME1 choices) that creates a new ending possibility.

Not to sidetrack you, but I've been given the impression that other than the EC, all future DLCs are going to be MP-based, rather than the single player side of things.

Which makes me wonder why exactly we're supposed to hold onto our savegames forever? Collectors item maybe?

"And here ladies and gentlemen, a real treat. A rare first generation Mass Effect 3 save file. It comes in three colours, and a range of emotions." 

Hehe, "none of which mean anything".

[Seijin8]

Regarding future DLC: as I understand it, a "Retake Omega" was already in the works when it got sidetracked for the EC. It was supposed to coincide with Vorcha being available in MP, which by all accounts (rumors anyway) will be sometime next month. It was probably intended to be previewed at E3.

(Much speculation here, btw)

With a microtransaction strategy, it doesn't make a lot of sense to charge people for MP DLC.  This divides the player base, and players who have to buy DLC in order to buy the things from the DLC typically won't buy either.

Modifié par Seijin8, 18 mai 2012 - 05:57 .

[Vespervin]

That was an interesting read.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I don't buy the deliberate sabotage thing. For one, they would never have trotted out the whole "artistic integrity" thing if that were so. For two, they wouldn't have made it so clear so many times that EC is not going to "change" the ending.

That's what has made me give up hope, and killed all interest in Bioware (outside this thread) for the nonce. If there had been some kind of brilliant plan, it would have spread to the social team immediately, and they would have been locked and loaded to deploy the "Hey guys... just wait to see what we have in store" missiles.

If they hadn't said "the EC will not change the endings," I'd be participating, giving feedback, all that stuff. I know I should be doing that now, but based on their own statements, I just can't believe that it will make a difference. If they'd just left that ambiguous, neither promising change nor denying it, I'd be much more willing to suspend my disbelief, maintain hope, and play along. That would be the action of a company that had sort of planned for this in some way.

Now, they have had community people say... things, but the company at large seems super hurt by all the negative reaction to the ending. The final hours app, the disavowed forum post about two people writing the ending by themselves, the silence, Casey's absence from the PAX panel... that's why I say that if this is a hoax or a trick or a trap, it is some Kaufman-as-Clifton-level commitment, here.

I'm more likely to believe that a few people who were very sleep deprived and operating on "tenth-straight-month-of-crunch" brains played a lot of Deus Ex and then wrote an ending. I can see someone with that kind of brain thinking Synthesis would seem like an OK option. I see all the options and I can feel the intent there, the desire to make us understand. I legitimately believe they wanted Destroy to be the "worst" ending, the "selfish and destructive" one, Control to be simple self-sacrifice, and Green to be "welcome to transhumanist utopia." The ending cutscene with Joker and EDI is so obviously trying so hard, it almost makes my teeth hurt.

[Seijin8]

Fair enough, though I will point out a "Hey guys... just wait to see what we have in store" came from Mike Gamble's twitter on April 5th. He specifically stated it was both for the EC and other ME3 related endeavors.

For the record, like I often do without adequate preamble, I am playing Devil's Advocate and believe Hanlon's Razor is in full effect. Your image of devs slaving over a hot compiler for months on end is likely the correct accounting.

[TheMarshal]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I don't buy the deliberate sabotage thing. For one, they would never have trotted out the whole "artistic integrity" thing if that were so. For two, they wouldn't have made it so clear so many times that EC is not going to "change" the ending.

That's what has made me give up hope, and killed all interest in Bioware (outside this thread) for the nonce. If there had been some kind of brilliant plan, it would have spread to the social team immediately, and they would have been locked and loaded to deploy the "Hey guys... just wait to see what we have in store" missiles.

If they hadn't said "the EC will not change the endings," I'd be participating, giving feedback, all that stuff. I know I should be doing that now, but based on their own statements, I just can't believe that it will make a difference. If they'd just left that ambiguous, neither promising change nor denying it, I'd be much more willing to suspend my disbelief, maintain hope, and play along. That would be the action of a company that had sort of planned for this in some way.

Now, they have had community people say... things, but the company at large seems super hurt by all the negative reaction to the ending. The final hours app, the disavowed forum post about two people writing the ending by themselves, the silence, Casey's absence from the PAX panel... that's why I say that if this is a hoax or a trick or a trap, it is some Kaufman-as-Clifton-level commitment, here.

I'm more likely to believe that a few people who were very sleep deprived and operating on "tenth-straight-month-of-crunch" brains played a lot of Deus Ex and then wrote an ending. I can see someone with that kind of brain thinking Synthesis would seem like an OK option. I see all the options and I can feel the intent there, the desire to make us understand. I legitimately believe they wanted Destroy to be the "worst" ending, the "selfish and destructive" one, Control to be simple self-sacrifice, and Green to be "welcome to transhumanist utopia." The ending cutscene with Joker and EDI is so obviously trying so hard, it almost makes my teeth hurt.

Yup.  Pretty much this.  I would have gladly accepted an apology for putting out a product which has caused such a backlash.  It would be easy to imagine them getting hit with crunch and being forced to put out a product that even they weren't entirely proud of.  But when they not only defend the finished product but insinuate that we simply don't get it - essentially ignoring every one of the well-articulated complaints - I just don't know...

My super pie-in-the-sky, delusional hope is that that we haven't actually seen the ending, and what we got really was some freakish form of indoctrination of the highest degree, and the EC will give us what was intended to be the ending all along.

[Seijin8]

Based on uncovered content that was already cut from the game, they have adequate ammunition to begin this process. Simply as a cost-saving measure, I think the majority of this is resurrected and re-added, which will be overall a good thing.

[KitaSaturnyne]

Seijin8 wrote...

Based on uncovered content that was already cut from the game, they have adequate ammunition to begin this process. Simply as a cost-saving measure, I think the majority of this is resurrected and re-added, which will be overall a good thing.

Such as?

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Seijin8 wrote...

Fair enough, though I will point out a "Hey guys... just wait to see what we have in store" came from Mike Gamble's twitter on April 5th. He specifically stated it was both for the EC and other ME3 related endeavors.

For the record, like I often do without adequate preamble, I am playing Devil's Advocate and believe Hanlon's Razor is in full effect. Your image of devs slaving over a hot compiler for months on end is likely the correct accounting.

Yeah, but it's the way he said it. I speak community (badly, as a third or fourth language). There's "wait 'til you see what we have in store" something awesome is coming, "wait 'till you see what we have in store" default, and "wait 'til you see what we have in store" pleading. It really did not sound like the first, could have been the second, but seemed the most like the third.

I have no doubt the EC will satisfy a lot of people. There will be your assets in action, some catalyst arguing, a reunion with the crew/LI if you pick destroy and live, maybe a scene of some ships hauling Relay rings back to slightly-less-damaged-than-we-thought relays. We'll get some epilogue slides and scenes of Tali building her Rannoc house, Liara supervising a memorial to Shepard, EDI and Joker being happy (if they live).

That's not what I need, though. For now I think there's an extremely small chance they'll do something that will save it for me, so I have some small amount of hope. If EC is what I think it is, I'll just mourn, probably slip into a mild depression for a month or so, and move on.

I think for me it's all about the "This won't change the endings" spiel. They didn't need to say that. The fact that they made the choice to say it and reinforce it over and over again speaks volumes.

[Seijin8]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

Seijin8 wrote...

Based on uncovered content that was already cut from the game, they have adequate ammunition to begin this process. Simply as a cost-saving measure, I think the majority of this is resurrected and re-added, which will be overall a good thing.

Such as?

I have no specifics because I have studiously avoided chasing the leads in case they were added at a later date, I didn't want any emotional impact (how hollow that now sounds...) ruined by foreknowledge.

Examples I know of are:
- Cut* dialogue with a Geth Prime about the geth's attitude toward the Reapers in the final battle. (*some people have said this is a replacement dialog for Tali should she and the Quarians die.)
- Audio of Joker using the Normandy within a Priority: Earth mission to provide strafing/fire support or somesuch.
- Some acknowledgement of the deaths of squadmates on the rush to the Conduit.
- The scene with Shep and Anderson in the Citadel, post-TIM was substantially longer and the audio tracks already exist on disc. Word is that it was a tear-jerker.

How much of any of these scenes currently exists, I couldn't say.  Lots of things get cut at various stages, so many of these may actually be defunct, but if they are searching for ways to pad the ending, going with resources already at hand seems a better way to do this than starting from scratch.

Modifié par Seijin8, 18 mai 2012 - 07:00 .