843 réponses à ce sujet

[someone else]

AlanC9 wrote...

Just for the record -- and since I like to keep this thread active -- I'm going to completely disagree with this:

someone else wrote...
ME3 SP is a broken game - despite a few flashes of brilliance - from the wholesale shift from dialogs to cutscenes, the endemic disregard of player choice(eg collector base), reintroduction of plot lines which player choice should have closed (eg rachni), the failure to bring forward major themes (eg dark energy), reducing ME2 from virtual to complete irrelevance, day 1 dlc, re-casting Liara as co-star and TIM as arch-villian, sidelining players' LI and Reapers - all this before you reach the jaw-dropping inanity of the Return, and the conversion of all the complex and meticuluously categorized "War Assets" into a single purpose grey goo that has zero affect on the war itself and only enables a variety of choices on the R-RGBR+ menu - options that open to no new gameplay or player consequences, are almost indistinquishable...and leave more questions, doubts and confusion than they resolve.

And so for me the conclusions don't follow.

I'm not personally concerned with the EMS issue -- like I said upthread, all my Sheps so far think the Red ending is morally unacceptable anyway. But I do think it's terrible design. And it bothers me because except for some ending issues I do like ME3 very much.

we could discuss our differences on this but that would take this very off-topic

the relevant point I was driving at is that the ems issue is part of a larger constellation of oversights, miscues, lost opportunity and breaches of the audience/player connnection, without which an experience like ME1 cannot take place, and which was only marginally realized in ME2 and even less so in 3.

...and I did enjoy playing ME3 - lots of my toys as a kid were also broken but I still managed to have fun...

[tishyw]

someone else wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Just for the record -- and since I like to keep this thread active -- I'm going to completely disagree with this:

someone else wrote...
ME3 SP is a broken game - despite a few flashes of brilliance - from the wholesale shift from dialogs to cutscenes, the endemic disregard of player choice(eg collector base), reintroduction of plot lines which player choice should have closed (eg rachni), the failure to bring forward major themes (eg dark energy), reducing ME2 from virtual to complete irrelevance, day 1 dlc, re-casting Liara as co-star and TIM as arch-villian, sidelining players' LI and Reapers - all this before you reach the jaw-dropping inanity of the Return, and the conversion of all the complex and meticuluously categorized "War Assets" into a single purpose grey goo that has zero affect on the war itself and only enables a variety of choices on the R-RGBR+ menu - options that open to no new gameplay or player consequences, are almost indistinquishable...and leave more questions, doubts and confusion than they resolve.

And so for me the conclusions don't follow.

I'm not personally concerned with the EMS issue -- like I said upthread, all my Sheps so far think the Red ending is morally unacceptable anyway. But I do think it's terrible design. And it bothers me because except for some ending issues I do like ME3 very much.

we could discuss our differences on this but that would take this very off-topic

the relevant point I was driving at is that the ems issue is part of a larger constellation of oversights, miscues, lost opportunity and breaches of the audience/player connnection, without which an experience like ME1 cannot take place, and which was only marginally realized in ME2 and even less so in 3.

...and I did enjoy playing ME3 - lots of my toys as a kid were also broken but I still managed to have fun...

While I agree with much of what was said in your two posts, the big issue for me with EMS is that we were assured that there would be enough points in the SP game to get everything that was available to MP players and that nothing would be locked from single players.  This is clearly not the case.

It's the principle of the thing, we were either miss-lead or lied to either by oversight or design, and the issue should be resolved by Bioware.  I'm a PC player, I was able to modify one of my assets to give me more points and so I saw the entire scene, but I shouldn't have to hack a saved game to allow Bioware keep their promises.

[Hvlukas]

Icinix wrote...

If I have to log in to anything when I get into the game, if I need to have a third party piece of software to run a game - its usually enough to turn me off of the game. Its not a universal rule, but for many its a put off.

Games start coming out where I'm throw a squillion different offline things at me sugesting I do this or what not (even I don't have to log on to different things) the game gets ignored. I was pumped for Settlers 7. Then I saw someone play it and the messiest most horrible main menu screen of all time, that was the end of that. But Ubisofts DRM has killed any purchases I would have made over the last few years anyway.

Regardless, online multiple devices is a bad idea. I want a complete game I can stop, pause, save, load on my time when it suits me. All this online stuff is killing gaming for me.

Quoted, because this is exactly my opinion. And it needs to be said again and again.

[Linkforlife]

I had something interesting happen to me the last night regarding the EMS rating: it randomly went to 50% when I had over 70% EMS and it stayed that way untill the game crashed and I started it up again.

[AlanC9]

someone else wrote...
the relevant point I was driving at is that the ems issue is part of a larger constellation of oversights, miscues, lost opportunity and breaches of the audience/player connnection, without which an experience like ME1 cannot take place, and which was only marginally realized in ME2 and even less so in 3. 

OK... but I still don't agree with you. Reading this post I realize that our standards for what we want in an ME game are just different, probably irreconcilably so. I think that ME2 was a substantial improvement  over ME1, for instance, so things that you see as lost opportunites and oversights I no doubt see as bad ideas that were, thankfully, abandoned.

But yeah, this is OT. We've got other threads for this sort of thing.

[BeefoTheBold]

I've been gone for a few weeks. Has EA finally addressed the issue about MP being mandatory to see the "best" ending yet?

[abaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

OK... but I still don't agree with you. Reading this post I realize that our standards for what we want in an ME game are just different, probably irreconcilably so. I think that ME2 was a substantial improvement  over ME1, for instance, so things that you see as lost opportunites and oversights I no doubt see as bad ideas that were, thankfully, abandoned.

I can agree with that. I always thought that ME2 was the best when it came to my personal preferences. What I don't get though is, that you seem to assume they carried over into ME3.

There are obvious differences and in my opinion, not for the better. The most obvious, to stay halfway on topic, is the tacked on multiplayer and the action before roleplaying feeling that came with it.

[AlanC9]

Well, I can certainly agree with the tacked on MP part. I don't mind the MP as a concept -- though I don't play it myself -- but it's thanks to Bio's MP implementation that we're having this thread.

And yeah, I really don't see a substantial difference between the design approaches for ME2 and ME3. But I suppose we should have that discussion elsewhere too.

[paul165]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

I've been gone for a few weeks. Has EA finally addressed the issue about MP being mandatory to see the "best" ending yet?

No and it appears unlikely they ever will just like the rest of things they promised that proved to be too troublesome to honour (dialogue options, face import, different endings, meaningful differences based on decisions, etc, etc, ad nauseum).

I personally just file it under 'one of many things the ME3 team lied about were deliberately misleading on' and apply to any future bioware games under consideration (ie screw Generals, screw pre orders wait for the fans to provide reviews at the very least).

Not that judging by 1.03 they appear to have learnt anything.
 

[RAF1940]

BeefoTheBold wrote...

I've been gone for a few weeks. Has EA finally addressed the issue about MP being mandatory to see the "best" ending yet?

Guess.

[BeefoTheBold]

Thanks guys.

[Cratto]

 Delurking after an absence. 

Wow. No news.

My initial optimism that this was just an oversight has faded completely. What with the dev's comments and the complete lack of movement on this (and the attitude we can do it - you're just missing something (along with everyone else!)) I've concluded that this was intentional either to get us to go mp or to buy more sp dlc in the future.

And that there was 'no canon' is wearing a bit thin too. It feels like the scene we all want is an Easter Egg (as well as adding yet more plot holes). This is fine - just say that. I...we...all play a lot of games where there is a defined storyline / canon - still enjoy them. A lot. It sums up the whole thing really, just tell us: we've included a scene for those who play mp / infiltrator etc and yes there's a defined storyline and its this. We might not like it... We might not buy the game... But we'll probably think better of Bioware at the end of it.

Sigh. Well here's to being a second class gamer.
Also, I got an iPad (went to the States - great deal and totally worth it ) and got infiltrator during a sale. It's a good game - worth playing. But to get to the required amount of readiness (60%) or even the full 100% is not difficult. And i'm a useless gamer! So in terms of ME3 it adds very, very little.

Modifié par Cratto, 05 juin 2012 - 07:40 .

[abaris]

Cratto wrote...

Wow. No news.

No news is intended news - or unintended.

It would be really just about fiddling with a single game file. Go figure, why they didn't do that already.

[someone else]

tishyw wrote...
It's the principle of the thing, we were either miss-lead or lied to either by oversight or design, and the issue should be resolved by Bioware.  I'm a PC player, I was able to modify one of my assets to give me more points and so I saw the entire scene, but I shouldn't have to hack a saved game to allow Bioware keep their promises.

I understand this^

I assume from the odd-ball # of total potential TMS that it was an error - likely due last minute content cuts and juggling (there were, as I recall a lot of cues on the Citadel that seems tailored as hooks for MIA fetch quests - just for instance) -

I am not sure simply revaluing TMS for a bunch of mission is as straight-forward as it sounds - where and when to add in the extra points may make some missions/fetch quests under or over valued.  Also, forcing the player to do absolutely everything completely and perfectly would be in itself an immense killjoy - suppose you had to complete all the collection missions in ME1 just to get a shot at saren?

If I understand correctly, some prior game decisions now render it impossible to get the maximum TMS from key ME3 missions, and even completion of the collection missions in ME1 adds to the score (i think).  Just raising TMS to the best game minimum threshold does not solve the ME3 problem - it would demand the player complete all three games perfectly - compare that burden to just a few rounds of MP - completely imbalanced and unfair to non-MPers, imho.

A realistic fix should require and reward above-average completion of ME3 alone, but not require an OCD personality type.  This means that a careful revaluation should take account of the value of critical missions, major side missions and sidequests in light of those which players would be reasonably expected to complete.   That would require some thought, not just raising scores on wholesale basis.  

Inasmuch as the TMS/EMS issue impacts only the ending, I would bet BW's silence on the matter means they will fix this with the EC, as part of their effort to "clarify", etc.   My guess is they will rethink the entire TMS scoring/ranking system...and any revaluation would need to go up through the chain to Casey, et al..

Modifié par someone else, 05 juin 2012 - 08:58 .

[paul165]

You're optimistic -I'm impressed and a little jealous.

I would however tend to argue that if they were going to fix it they would at least respond to the thread if nothing else to tell us to shut up and wait for the patch. However there has been no response in 3 months so I think it is safe to assume WAI and that they deliberated mislead to reduce the amount of rage about MP and are in fact still doing so (the official FAQ still has "incorrect" information about this topic).

[dekkerd]

paul165 wrote...

You're optimistic -I'm impressed and a little jealous.

I would however tend to argue that if they were going to fix it they would at least respond to the thread if nothing else to tell us to shut up and wait for the patch. However there has been no response in 3 months so I think it is safe to assume WAI and that they deliberated mislead to reduce the amount of rage about MP and are in fact still doing so (the official FAQ still has "incorrect" information about this topic).

It was mentioned, just not in a Ems thread. 

[tishyw]

someone else wrote...

I understand this^

I assume from the odd-ball # of total potential TMS that it was an error - likely due last minute content cuts and juggling (there were, as I recall a lot of cues on the Citadel that seems tailored as hooks for MIA fetch quests - just for instance) -

I am not sure simply revaluing TMS for a bunch of mission is as straight-forward as it sounds - where and when to add in the extra points may make some missions/fetch quests under or over valued.  Also, forcing the player to do absolutely everything completely and perfectly would be in itself an immense killjoy - suppose you had to complete all the collection missions in ME1 just to get a shot at saren?

If I understand correctly, some prior game decisions now render it impossible to get the maximum TMS from key ME3 missions, and even completion of the collection missions in ME1 adds to the score (i think).  Just raising TMS to the best game minimum threshold does not solve the ME3 problem - it would demand the player complete all three games perfectly - compare that burden to just a few rounds of MP - completely imbalanced and unfair to non-MPers, imho.

A realistic fix should require and reward above-average completion of ME3 alone, but not require an OCD personality type.  This means that a careful revaluation should take account of the value of critical missions, major side missions and sidequests in light of those which players would be reasonably expected to complete.   That would require some thought, not just raising scores on wholesale basis.  

Inasmuch as the TMS/EMS issue impacts only the ending, I would bet BW's silence on the matter means they will fix this with the EC, as part of their effort to "clarify", etc.   My guess is they will rethink the entire TMS scoring/ranking system...and any revaluation would need to go up through the chain to Casey, et al..

I think you're making it seem harder than it is, the simple solution for them if they don't want to fiddle with TMS/EMS levels is to raise the readiness level. 
I believe that it's been calculated by fans that raising it from 50% to 65% would allow someone who's played a reasonably complete run through of  ME3 only, to see the very final scene.

Changing that wouldn't be very hard for Bioware, it's just a few lines of code and honestly, 3 months should have been enough time for them to do this.  I'm glad you're optimistic about their intentions though, my optimism on this issue dried up when they started locking threads about it for no real reason.

[paul165]

dekkerd wrote...

paul165 wrote...

You're optimistic -I'm impressed and a little jealous.

I would however tend to argue that if they were going to fix it they would at least respond to the thread if nothing else to tell us to shut up and wait for the patch. However there has been no response in 3 months so I think it is safe to assume WAI and that they deliberated mislead to reduce the amount of rage about MP and are in fact still doing so (the official FAQ still has "incorrect" information about this topic).

It was mentioned, just not in a Ems thread. 

Yep in a response from Chris which said that they are looking at other issues [insert cut and paste list from the person who complained]. Any response from a dev that says they are bug fixing 'story issues' I would argue can hardly be regarded as gospel especially given his um...track record on accurate statements for ME3.

see: autodialogue; face import; this issue; multiplayer; dialogue options; patch 1.03, origin shotguns.

So yeah. If QA says they are fixing it with an ETA then I'll believe them until then...

But if you choose to believe the statement great - like I said I'm jealous of the people who can still be optimistic about Bioware's statements.

[someone else]

tishyw wrote...
I think you're making it seem harder than it is, the simple solution for them if they don't want to fiddle with TMS/EMS levels is to raise the readiness level.  I believe that it's been calculated by fans that raising it from 50% to 65% would allow someone who's played a reasonably complete run through of  ME3 only, to see the very final scene.

Does this ensure a player can still get the Worst possible ending?  Any ems 1750 or higher excludes the worst ending so if you raise GR to 65%, a 3500 score gives an EMS of 2275, eliminating the two bottom outcomes.  You would have to have a TMS of no more than 2692 to get ems below 1750 - I am not sure it is possible to get to the Return without amassing more points than that -

But if BW raises GR, they can't tweak the ending thresholds because that will simply recreate the present situation,  so it is a bit more complicated than it may appear.

Of course we'll all be eating ice cream and cake when the big IT/delirium/Story surprise new ending is revealed (by Stargazer, of course) and all this will seem like a bad dream...

Modifié par someone else, 06 juin 2012 - 01:27 .

[paul165]

Raise GR after completing the game maybe?

[someone else]

^? raising the GR after not getting to the endings you want? ..i yam missin sumpin, bro...

the only real simple solution is to add a major mission like the 'legendary' Retake Omega - which was on the drawing board at some point - but think about the situation of the 7 people (they live in a small village in Azerbaijan, I believe) who did not buy the From Ashes DLC - their ems situation is even more fracked.

these mission would need to be free to get sp to where you non-mpers want it - and BW is unlikely to make FA free after charging for it in CE and Day 1 dlc, or give away a major dlc...

so like i been saying, its complicated...

Modifié par someone else, 06 juin 2012 - 10:23 .

[BeefoTheBold]

paul165 wrote...

You're optimistic -I'm impressed and a little jealous.

I would however tend to argue that if they were going to fix it they would at least respond to the thread if nothing else to tell us to shut up and wait for the patch. However there has been no response in 3 months so I think it is safe to assume WAI and that they deliberated mislead to reduce the amount of rage about MP and are in fact still doing so (the official FAQ still has "incorrect" information about this topic).

Yep, I agree. The greatest proof is the continued and complete silence, both from Bioware itself and the legions of fans who defended them and told us to "trust Bioware" when the rest of us got upset when the supposedly "optional" multiplayer mode was announced.

Look at how freaking long this thread is. Think about how many other threads on the very same topic have been closed.

MP was always intended to be mandatory.

The thing that people are forgetting over and over and over again is that the pre-2009 Bioware DOES. NOT. EXIST. anymore. All that remains is Electronic Arts. The name "Bioware" is only maintained because of it's once legendary reputation in the industry as the gold standard for consistent quality, fantastic storylines and character development, and complete, polished games.

But Bioware that people associate with the name is gone. Electronic Arts is all that remains. So whenever you're faced with a decision on whether or not something was done on purpose or by accident, don't think "Would Bioware have done something like this on purpose?"

Think instead, "Would Electronic Arts have done something like this on purpose?"

[someone else]

^...I may want to play the baldur series...

[tishyw]

someone else wrote...

^...I may want to play the baldur series...

If you haven't, you should because it's excellent!  The best place to get them these days is from the good old games website, where you can download them complete with expansion packs for about $10.00.

[katling73]

tishyw wrote...

someone else wrote...

^...I may want to play the baldur series...

If you haven't, you should because it's excellent!  The best place to get them these days is from the good old games website, where you can download them complete with expansion packs for about $10.00.

Or you can wait until summer this year when some former Bioware people bring out the Enhanced Edition of BG and BG2. Same game, a little bit more added in and rejigged so that they'll work on modern day PCs and Macs without needing to fiddle around or use extra programs.

.......but this is a little off-topic so back to your regularly programmed miffed-ness at the EMS problem.

Modifié par katling73, 07 juin 2012 - 07:25 .