156 réponses à ce sujet

[Ket-Bo]

Tesclo wrote...

Just give in already. FIX YOUR GAME! Bethesda did and I bet they're considered more respectable than you are right about now. Bioware no longer holds the title. Those days are long gone. You are a shell of what you once were. You sold out. Your customers don't respect you. Infact, by selling out and rushing garbage out the door you've become the joke of the industry. You'd rather spend money on promotion than actually making a quality product. You cater to big wigs and button mashers. I can really go on all day... but I'm sure questioning the business practice (if that's what you want to call it) of our almighty gods is enough to, at the very least, temp ban my account. How dare I share an opinion?! It's not enough that I'm greeted by an open threat at the top of the site everytime I log in. It's not like this site was created so that "the devs could speak with their fans" or anything, right?

Regardless, I hate big business. It ruins quality. It makes the entire industry garbage by forcing smaller talent out of the market. Fueled by greed it does nothing but defend it's own and screw over the consumer. We are sheep, cattle and, dare I say, "meat bags" placed on this planet with no other purpose but to hand you money. Truly the scum of the Earth.

How about I request a refund for my "Mass Effect" 3 purchase? I wonder how long I'd have to talk to Peggy over there in "customer support" (more than likely paid less than a dollar day to answer the phone in some Asian country because God knows an American company can't actually hire American employees and pay them a fair wage) to get that processed?

Question: if you do hate "Big Business" so much, why do you support them by buying their products?

Modifié par Ket-Bo, 17 avril 2012 - 12:03 .

[AkiKishi]

charmingcharlie wrote...

kalle90 wrote...  Point is people wanted to continue with their characters. They had to make the smallest possible rewrite to allow it.

No the point is Bethesda's original "artistic" vision for Fallout 3 was to have your character die, snuff it, feed the worms, push up the daisies.  The fans did not like this ending, they found the ending unsatisfying and they complained in droves.

So Bethesda made a significant change to the ending (sorry but going from dead to being unconcious is a pretty damn significant change).  The fact people are arguing that changing the main character from being dead to being unconcious is only a "small" change actually pretty much baffles me.

It has very little real impact aside from removing the sacrifice,which considering you could have a character that  could do the job without harm anyway meant all they were doing was correcting an oversight.

[wolfstanus]

Oblivion got a pov style cenemaric of of a dragon fighting that 4 arm god... To turf to remember names. Before that you got special dragon armor with a speech and all that. Also a statue being called the hero of blah blah blah. And the inhabitants ignoring your crimes. Most of them anyways.9

Morrowind had that but the cenemaric that you got explained what happend to the land thanks to your actions. It also ended the blight storms. Allowing you to kill cliff racers in the sun.

Skyrim just kinda just Killed alduin... And the inhabitants not really caring to much that the world almost got destroyed by a crazy dragon. And life continued as if it didn't happen.

[kalle90]

charmingcharlie wrote...
Erm it aint rocket science but if Bioware needs a hand finding out where it goes to crap then it is pretty easy to point it out.  Basically the bit where Shepard gets mysteriously lifted up to meet Space Casper the brat is where it goes to crap.  There they now know where the majority hate the ending, that wasn't too difficult now was it.

So Crucible is activated and the game ends with Shepard and Anderson watching as Reapers are destroyed? Slap some 5 minutes of epilogue vids for good measure (removing Normandy crash I assume). It sounds smooth, but I doubt it will be too well received, especially after we have already seen the starchild bit. "That's it?! I pressed "Win" button and it's over?"

Or should they include new gameplay, a boss fight, another level? If Bioware really didn't want to do that I'm not surprised they can't come up with better alternative. It's like writing a novel and then someone coming "Change the ending" which makes me all confused "What should I do, I already thought this through. I can't just cut the last paragraph and say "done""

With Fallout 3 it just was way more easier. "Why you killed my character I want to continue the game" vs "Bad ending, fix it".

[wolfstanus]

That's why they are redoing the latest book... You can't just change a little... You have to change a lot to make a new ending etc work.

[MalevoIence]

Tesclo wrote...

wolfstanus wrote...

Skyrim has no "ending" hey I killed alduin... Oh cool a fur coat.

Skyrim is also one of the most respected and played RPGs on the market... Bioware has done nothing but strike out since Origins.

Dragonage Origins was great, but a quality product it was not..... first 15 min I hit a game breaking bug of the only door out of the courtyard not unlocking after a convo.  But most of all.... Dragonage 2 destroyed hopes for a spiritual successor to the series and continuation of a possible epic rpg franchise.

[Sanunes]

Right now the problem is Risk vs Reward. For how much change do they want to make without causing more people to be upset at the ending, if they changed it all the way back to Marauder Shields the people that just wanted to know more at the end of the game could become upset increasing the numbers of upset people (or keeping it the same) and spending more money for an equal result.

With Broken Steel it was clear to what needed to be changed, for I know I wasn't buying Fallout 3 DLC for I couldn't load a save that would allow me to play it without starting the game from scratch again and there was less risk of upsetting more people because it was a single change to the game.

Edit to add:

I found Skryim to be a horrible experience from all the bugs in the game and how Bethesda handled the complaints about them.  I rented Skyrim to see how buggy it really was and I shocked to see it felt it was as buggy as Morrowind and it looks like Bethesda is treating people the same way as BioWare, for I remember reading an article where fans were being told to "calm down" from a twitter response.

Modifié par Sanunes, 17 avril 2012 - 01:42 .

[DaJe]

I don't agree with the choice of your words, but there is one thing I'd like to focus on:

If EA would have given Bioware more time and funding to begin with they wouldn't have to make a free Extended Cut to barely fix parts of a rushed conclusion. The negative outcry and significant loss of reputation and future sales could have been avoided.
Instead more effort and money was put into marketing. In short, the resource could have been spend better.

I hope they learn and realize that you don't have to market the crap out of something if it is of high quality.
BW can deliver high quality and they did in many areas, but with more resources allocated to the actual game and less to marketing it could have entered game history in a very different way. Now ME3 is an internet meme along the lines of "xyz is still a better ending than Mass Effect 3" and that is final.

[charmingcharlie]

BobSmith101 wrote...  It has very little real impact aside from removing the sacrifice,which considering you could have a character that  could do the job without  harm anyway meant all they were doing was correcting an oversight.

There is very little impact with changing the ending of  Mass Effect 3.  All Bioware need to do is cut the Space Casper brat out (a character that does not even fit within the universe) chuck in a few Epilogue screens and hey presto there is your ending. 

But I know this is pointless arguing because people keep coming up with "but's" all the time.  The whole argument for Bioware not changing the ending was down to some silly "artistic integrity" crap and how it would "remove all artistic creativity from the software industry quicker than you can say SPACE MAGIC".  That has been
completely debunked because Bethesda already did a major change to an  ending and all that happened was people got to enjoy the game more.

kalle90
wrote...  So Crucible is activated and the game ends with Shepard and Anderson watching as Reapers are destroyed? Slap some 5 minutes of epilogue vids for good measure (removing Normandy crash I assume). It
sounds smooth, but I doubt it will be too well received, especially after we have already seen the starchild bit. "That's it?! I pressed "Win" button and it's over?"

Pretty much works for me, lets face it that can't be any worse than the unmitigated drivel we got the first time.  I don't think there is any need for new gameplay or a boss fight or another level especially since I have seen a lot of people going "Meh I will youtube the new ending" (which is what I am going to do).

Will it please everyone ?  Nope not by a long shot.  The thing is though you are not going to please everyone. Even if Bioware rewrote the entire ending from the minute you arrive in London onwards I would not be happy.  The moment has gone now, the franchise is tarnished by that ending it doesn't matter what they do.  Personally I am in favour of them doing nothing to the ending not because I want them to preserve their "artistic integrity" but because there is no point.

wolfstanus wrote...  That's why they are redoing the latest book... You can't just change a little... You have to change a lot to make a new ending etc work.

To be honest no one actually complained just about the ending of the book.  The problem with the book is the ENTIRE book.  It is a complete and utter mess from start to finish that is why it is being redone completely.  That is different to ME 3, most will agree that 95% of the game was decent and enjoyable.  The only major problem for most is the absolutely pathetic sorry excuse for an ending.

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 17 avril 2012 - 02:01 .

[Sanunes]

DaJe wrote...

I don't agree with the choice of your words, but there is one thing I'd like to focus on:

If EA would have given Bioware more time and funding to begin with they wouldn't have to make a free Extended Cut to barely fix parts of a rushed conclusion. The negative outcry and significant loss of reputation and future sales could have been avoided.
Instead more effort and money was put into marketing. In short, the resource could have been spend better.

I hope they learn and realize that you don't have to market the crap out of something if it is of high quality.
BW can deliver high quality and they did in many areas, but with more resources allocated to the actual game and less to marketing it could have entered game history in a very different way. Now ME3 is an internet meme along the lines of "xyz is still a better ending than Mass Effect 3" and that is final.

I think the problem as a whole is the industry has stopped making endings, for they want to leave it open enough for sequels to prevent the need of creating a whole new world.  I admit my game purchases are not as much as they have been in the past, but my experiences with any game I have played from the 360/PS3 era the ending feels flat for they want to continue that franchise.  It was just made worse in Mass Effect 3 with having choices in the game itself and it being touted at the end of the Shepard story.

[LiquidGrape]

Tesclo wrote...

Just give in already. FIX YOUR GAME! Bethesda did and I bet they're considered more respectable than you are right about now. Bioware no longer holds the title. Those days are long gone. You are a shell of what you once were. You sold out.

Excuse me, but how exactly have they "sold out" by declining to fundamentally alter their work based on external demands?

I'm asking this as someone who actually isn't entirely opposed to the idea of a revision, but is getting more than a little tired of this hyperbolic rhetoric.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 17 avril 2012 - 03:49 .

[AkiKishi]

charmingcharlie wrote...

There is very little impact with changing the ending of  Mass Effect 3.  All Bioware need to do is cut the Space Casper brat out (a character that does not even fit within the universe) chuck in a few Epilogue screens and hey presto there is your ending. 

But I know this is pointless arguing because people keep coming up with "but's" all the time.  The whole argument for Bioware not changing the ending was down to some silly "artistic integrity" crap and how it would "remove all artistic creativity from the software industry quicker than you can say SPACE MAGIC".  That has been
completely debunked because Bethesda already did a major change to an  ending and all that happened was people got to enjoy the game more.

It's not on the same level at all. Fallout only impacted on the character, the characters mission,or chosing not to do it still held after he recovered from being dead. The end of ME3 is a cataclysm on a galactic scale. If you wanted to put it into Fallout terms it would be like launching bunkers full of nukes all over again because some old world AI told you that was the only way to stop the threat of X.

Even if we take that the relays did not go kaboom like in Arrival , the effect would still be like removing every method of transport on over night. How do you think society would cope with that ?

While I would say it is in Biowares interests to fix the ending. EA does not have the will or the cash to make it happen.

[TsubakiYayoi]

Fallout 3 also had an way to low Levelcap which they finally fixed with Mothership Zeta if I remember correctly.
But comparing those two games isnt fair. Fallout is more exploring/surviving/RPG and Mass Effect Story/Conversations/characters/(shooter[since ME2])

[Father_Jerusalem]

Bethesda released the "Horse Armor" DLC for Oblivion. And you feel comfortable calling them "more respected", do you?

Horse Armor.

How quick we are to forgive when something new pisses us off, I suppose.

[thunderhawk862002]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Bethesda released the "Horse Armor" DLC for Oblivion. And you feel comfortable calling them "more respected", do you?

Horse Armor.

How quick we are to forgive when something new pisses us off, I suppose.

And if I recall they never tried to do something like that again. Horse armor is an additional piece of DLC that doesn't impact very much.  If you want to talk about useless DLC try pallette swaps of weapons for Gears of War.

[AkiKishi]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Bethesda released the "Horse Armor" DLC for Oblivion. And you feel comfortable calling them "more respected", do you?

Horse Armor.

How quick we are to forgive when something new pisses us off, I suppose.

How many years ago was that ? Talk about holding a grudge.

DLC since then has been top notch.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 17 avril 2012 - 03:11 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

thunderhawk862002 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Bethesda released the "Horse Armor" DLC for Oblivion. And you feel comfortable calling them "more respected", do you?

Horse Armor.

How quick we are to forgive when something new pisses us off, I suppose.

And if I recall they never tried to do something like that again. Horse armor is an additional piece of DLC that doesn't impact very much.  If you want to talk about useless DLC try pallette swaps of weapons for Gears of War.

Gears of War is, by far, more atrocious with their useless DLC, yes. I won't even argue that point.

I just find it funny that everyone's screaming about BioWare and EA nickle and diming you with DLC yet goes on to praise a company that had DLC far far worse than anything BioWare's done. At least the alternate squad outfits in ME2 were for your actual team mates and not... your horse.

BobSmith101 wrote...

How many years ago was that ? Talk about holding a grudge.
DLC since then has been top notch.

Again, it's not a grudge, it's just something I find amusing, I won't argue about their DLC being top-notch since then either, I've heard very very good things about Oblivion's DLC. I haven't experienced it first hand because I just don't like the way the skill systems work in the Elder Scrolls games (And this goes back to Daggerfall) but from what people, and critics, have said it's had very very good DLCs.

But again.... they DID release the Horse Armor DLC. And charged people money for it. Gears was worse, but that was still BAD.

[Nomen Mendax]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Bethesda released the "Horse Armor" DLC for Oblivion. And you feel comfortable calling them "more respected", do you?

Horse Armor.

How quick we are to forgive when something new pisses us off, I suppose.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.  Bethesda released DLC that was widely thought to be a cheap money-grab.  They realized how unpopular it was and never did anything like it again.  In other words they made a mistake and learned from it - which seems a reason to respect them.

[TsubakiYayoi]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Bethesda released the "Horse Armor" DLC for Oblivion. And you feel comfortable calling them "more respected", do you?

Horse Armor.

How quick we are to forgive when something new pisses us off, I suppose.

Its a simple matter of choce. Nobody forced you to buy it, nobody actually needs it at all and who used a horse in TES Oblivion anyway?

[AkiKishi]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Again, it's not a grudge, it's just something I find amusing, I won't argue about their DLC being top-notch since then either, I've heard very very good things about Oblivion's DLC. I haven't experienced it first hand because I just don't like the way the skill systems work in the Elder Scrolls games (And this goes back to Daggerfall) but from what people, and critics, have said it's had very very good DLCs.

But again.... they DID release the Horse Armor DLC. And charged people money for it. Gears was worse, but that was still BAD.

Why is it amusing ? It's one isolated incident which was rectified. If your comparing it to ME3 and Bioware. Bioware comes to ME3 off the backs of Awakening,Dragon Age 2 and TOR. That's a pattern of fail, not an isolated incident.

[Father_Jerusalem]

BobSmith101 wrote...




Why is it amusing ? It's one isolated incident which was rectified. If your comparing it to ME3 and Bioware. Bioware comes to ME3 off the backs of Awakening,Dragon Age 2 and TOR. That's a pattern of fail, not an isolated incident.

It's amusing to me because you'll rail against EA's policy on DLCs, but forgive one of the more exploitive DLCs to ever be released - even if they DID learn from it and never do it again, yes, point granted, absolutely - just because you're so pissed off at BioWare right now.

And TOR isn't a failure, DA2 was something different that had technical failures but storywise and companionwise was very good, and Awakenings.... well. I just pretend that never existed. Awakenings? I know no Awakenings.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 17 avril 2012 - 03:42 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

slyguy200 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...


Gears of War is, by far, more atrocious with their useless DLC, yes. I won't even argue that point.


 Raams shadow was cool though.

I honestly wouldn't know. I tried playing the first Gears, thought it was stupid, and haven't touched Gears since. I'd HOPE that if you're paying for reskins of guns, it'd be cool, honestly, otherwise... I mean, who'd pay for a DLC that turned your huge cannon into a little water pistol?


... ****, I'd totally pay for that. BioWare, can we get a DLC to turn all our guns into water pistols, just so we can kill the Reapers in the most ridiculous way possible?