327 réponses à ce sujet

[IamBlue]

TheFinalDoctor wrote...


have to download firmware and patches all the time.


not if you don't have internet access

This. And for the consoles, the DLCs are not available in every country, so...

Modifié par IamBlue, 26 avril 2012 - 03:18 .

[delphonic]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It would require the game to be extended. Plus, it's not clear what would happen after Shep wakes up.

No one ever answers this question

Again, it's called Mass Effect 4

EC reveals Shepard wakes up from indoctrination attempt and that's the end of ME3, but the battle for Earth has only just begun. It wasn't possible for ME3 (assemble fleet to stop the reapers) and ME4 (war with the reapers) to be one game. 

[StElmo]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It would require the game to be extended. Plus, it's not clear what would happen after Shep wakes up.

No one ever answers this question

Maybe he makes it to the citadel beam and activates the weapon and it kills all the reapers?

Maybe he wakes up at the console of the citadel (having only passed out into indoc after arriving and andersons death) and presses "boom"

[StElmo]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

delphonic wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It would require the game to be extended. Plus, it's not clear what would happen after Shep wakes up.

No one ever answers this question

Again, it's called Mass Effect 4

EC reveals Shepard wakes up from indoctrination attempt and that's the end of ME3, but the battle for Earth has only just begun. It wasn't possible for ME3 (assemble fleet to stop the reapers) and ME4 (war with the reapers) to be one game. 

Well, that would be cool.

Far more acceptable then what we got, that si for sure.

[IamBlue]

StElmo wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It would require the game to be extended. Plus, it's not clear what would happen after Shep wakes up.

No one ever answers this question

Maybe he makes it to the citadel beam and activates the weapon and it kills all the reapers?

Maybe he wakes up at the console of the citadel (having only passed out into indoc after arriving and andersons death) and presses "boom"

But then there is only one ending instead of three. I would prefer that, but not everyone would agree.

[Jymm]

Several people have questioned the business strategy of a planned IT from the start. If they had actually planned IT from the start it would have been an EPIC trick to play on their own customers. I cannot conceive of how EA would let them get away with it. Its too risky. Risky but completely amazing. I would have been blown away if that had turned out to be true. So much so that it would have altered my opinion of _EA_ to the positive, let alone what I think of Bioware.

I think at this point there is no chance that they had intended such a bait-and-switch. They would have released it well before now, just for starters. So the endings were meant to be... whatever they are. But then people threw a huge fit and we (the community) quickly wrote them a path out of that corner they had painted themselves into. It does seem like a free pass to simply embrace that idea, and they get a second crack at the ending. Yes, they still have to write something that happens from red-laser-beam on, but if you _know_ you struck out and someone says "would you like another at-bat?" you take it. From an outsider perspective this seems like a no-brainer.

I think there are a host of reasons they haven't done it, all of them completely outside of the merits of the theory or of this particular game. They are paralyzed by not knowing what the reaction would be if they did embrace IT. Maybe it will be even worse (or no better) than what they have now. They are terrified of the precedent it would set to let fan outrage force a rewrite of a finished product (both for themselves and for the wider industry.) Also the two chaps who wrote this ending probably don't want it changed and I doubt the top brass wants to be seen over-ruling them. That would have irreparable consequences internal to Bioware or in the BW / EA relationship if they over-ruled the product's lead creative types after the fact. Mostly I think the traditional corporate style damage control doesn't allow for a move as bold as embracing IT.

[IamBlue]

DuneMuadDib wrote...

IamBlue wrote...

Because then they would have sold us a game without an end, instead of one with a bad ending...

They sold a game with Day One DLC that was actually important to the narrative, unlike Zaeed and Kasumi.  Wouldn't put it past them to make us pay for the proper ending.

True, but a missing end is a lot worse than a missing character. He was important, but you can still have the whole experience without him.

I am not saying I wouldn't like IT to be true, I would actually love it! But I really think they won't take the risk.

[delphonic]

Jymm wrote...
Mostly I think the traditional corporate style damage control doesn't allow for a move as bold as embracing IT.

There is no other form of damage control in this situation

Indoctrination Theory is the only way

[StElmo]

IamBlue wrote...

DuneMuadDib wrote...

IamBlue wrote...

Because then they would have sold us a game without an end, instead of one with a bad ending...

They sold a game with Day One DLC that was actually important to the narrative, unlike Zaeed and Kasumi.  Wouldn't put it past them to make us pay for the proper ending.

True, but a missing end is a lot worse than a missing character. He was important, but you can still have the whole experience without him.

I am not saying I wouldn't like IT to be true, I would actually love it! But I really think they won't take the risk.

meanwhile they are rubbing salt into the wound with "clarification".

[DuneMuadDib]

IamBlue wrote...

True, but a missing end is a lot worse than a missing character. He was important, but you can still have the whole experience without him.

I am not saying I wouldn't like IT to be true, I would actually love it! But I really think they won't take the risk.

Very true.  I hate to think that maybe IT was true, and the backlash killed it when BioWare/EA dug in their heels defending the ending.  If it was true there's no way they could walk back the damage now, so if it was true they've almost certainly dropped it.

[Reptilian Rob]

Their clueless?

I mean, I thought it was pretty obvious.

[Aaleel]

Multiple reasons.

1) It would mean that they shipped the last game of a 5 year trilogy without an ending. The idea of this should ****** people off, but oddly people are hoping this is the case to my amazement.

2) It would mean that they let fans write the ending to their game. I can actually understand this. If I wrote something for 5 years, one of my readers isn't going to write the ending for me, that's absurd.

3) It would mean there was only one correct choice that you have to make EVERY game. If they flesh out the three choices and actually give them pros and cons, that would be a better outcome IMHO. 

Modifié par Aaleel, 26 avril 2012 - 03:40 .

[NS Wizdum]

IamBlue wrote...

Because then they would have sold us a game without an end, instead of one with a bad ending...

I'd rather believe the game wasn't finished, vs. believing that a developer I had a lot of faith OKed the current ending. This is like learning that Einstein enjoyed huffing pain thinner in his free time.

[IamBlue]

StElmo wrote...

meanwhile they are rubbing salt into the wound with "clarification".

Yes, that hurts us!
Let's see how they clarify synthesis...

[DTKT]

IamBlue wrote...

StElmo wrote...

meanwhile they are rubbing salt into the wound with "clarification".

Yes, that hurts us!
Let's see how they clarify synthesis...

Sentient toasters, electric trees and intelligent hats.

Nice going Bioware.

[IanPolaris]

OP: The answer to your question can be summed up with one word. PRIDE, i.e. hubris, one of the seven deadly sins.

Basically the 'creative' staff at BW seem to have their collective nose out of joint for the fans daring to question their artistic and thematic masterpiece that is ME3 and have deigned to try to explain it so us mere peasants...I mean customers.

-Polaris

[XxDarkTimexX]

i think what they should is with the destroy ending just make it to where that the citadel is a trap setup by the reapers if anyone found the plans to do the crucible and successded and the citsdel is a powerful reaper that is the first and make it kill shepard but make your lover has a child at the end then do the whole old man and child talk after the credits.

Mass effect 4 Anyone

[XxDarkTimexX]

the ending i came up with has no gameplay whats so ever only citatics and it adds to the current endings in other words in mass effect 4 the war against the reapers is still happening and it takes 20 or 30 years after the events of mass effect 3  

Modifié par XxDarkTimexX, 26 avril 2012 - 04:02 .

[StElmo]

IamBlue wrote...

StElmo wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It would require the game to be extended. Plus, it's not clear what would happen after Shep wakes up.

No one ever answers this question

Maybe he makes it to the citadel beam and activates the weapon and it kills all the reapers?

Maybe he wakes up at the console of the citadel (having only passed out into indoc after arriving and andersons death) and presses "boom"

But then there is only one ending instead of three. I would prefer that, but not everyone would agree.

no, only one action, but the ending could be full of different events based on your war asset choices.

So geth + quarians fighting side by side = less geth and quarian casualties.

ETC.

[IamBlue]

XxDarkTimexX wrote...

i think what they should is with the destroy ending just make it to where that the citadel is a trap setup by the reapers if anyone found the plans to do the crucible and successded and the citsdel is a powerful reaper that is the first and make it kill shepard but make your lover has a child at the end then do the whole old man and child talk after the credits.

Mass effect 4 Anyone

I don't think Garrus can have babies...

[XxDarkTimexX]

IamBlue wrote...

XxDarkTimexX wrote...

i think what they should is with the destroy ending just make it to where that the citadel is a trap setup by the reapers if anyone found the plans to do the crucible and successded and the citsdel is a powerful reaper that is the first and make it kill shepard but make your lover has a child at the end then do the whole old man and child talk after the credits.

Mass effect 4 Anyone

I don't think Garrus can have babies...

he chould maybe if you are female but it would have to be turian

Modifié par XxDarkTimexX, 26 avril 2012 - 04:05 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

StElmo wrote...

Okay, so Bioware are now a subsidiary of EA (correct me if I am wrong).

The suits have many rights, including veto power, and the ability to shape the direction of a game.

Why haven't they just made an executive order to make the ending indoc theory as part of the clarification DLC? It. is. a. free. pass.

All signs point to the ending NOT being indoc theory, but being REAL (incl. starkld and coward normandy).

I'm a pragmatist, and I see nothing concievably bad occuring as a result of indoc theory being taken up. The other direction, however, reveals a much more bleak outlook.

Thoughts?

Bleak is a serious understatement, because as it sits right now, there is no outlook, just a down-right, idiotic no-holds-barred, nonsense ending.

[The Milky Waver]

To be honest, I don't know what the hell is going on over there at their studios. Bioware could be agruing with EA that they should use the IT, but EA isn't letting them. Or Bioware is just too stubborn to cave with a theory that was made by the fans (what happened to them being "co developers with the fans"?).

Modifié par The Milky Waver, 26 avril 2012 - 04:06 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Cainora wrote...

They would still have to think of the real ending if they used Indoc Theory correct? Or did they up with the answer for that too for Bioware?

Uh yeah, a real ending, we dismissed this claim.

We could write it for them, but then "integrity" would just muck it up.