510 réponses à ce sujet

[gmboy902]

The bottom line is, alienation aside, if BioWare (or EA) feels that an ending change = more money for DLCs, future games, etc., then they'll change it. That's that.

Businesses are about money. And I firmly believe that the people who hate the ending are in general the people who are fans of the series and plan on buying lots of DLC, not the person who picks it up because it's a cool sci-fi action game, trades it in for 30 bucks, rinses and repeats with another game.

[SalsaDMA]

This thread still going?

Dang....



Oh... And since I better be 'on topic' with the post as well...:

"I disagree with your opinion."

Now we just need to wait for the latest batch of insults I guess

[TheRealJayDee]

Daniel_N7 wrote...

It's curious - to say the least - how these propositions advocating that the ending should remain unchanged never address the ending itself, objectively. It all stays in the realm of generalization, which, of course, as a debating strategy, serves only one side. You know which, don't you?

Anyway, let's NOT talk about the ending - this is the "no spoilers" forum, after all. And I have no statistics, other than the ones that have been promoted on BSN or other websites. I have an interpretation of them, subjective as it may be, and I think that the majority of people in the Mass Effect fan community didn't like the ending, and have, in fact rejected it.

Now, we may question ourselves how significant is the ME fan community in numbers, in market percentage, when confronted with the overall number of potential customers? If you consider the 2 or 3 million sales (?) of Mass Effect 3, then the people advocating change are a clear minority in relation to the silent majority who (1) may like or (2) may not like the ending, but clearly don't care enough about it to express themselves. Probably the kind of customers EA likes best.

So, the question is, does BioWare care about its fan community? Ah, yes, the fans. Those hateful, entitled whiners... Who are they, really?

They are the ones who have, in fact, been promoting Mass Effect 3 for a long time, before the game was even launched. Celebrating their love for the Mass Effect universe on fan blogs, or through fan art, or fan fiction, or cosplaying, etc...

This is a community that has been raving at every new glimpse of concept art, with every new video, with every bit of news coming from magazines or from Casey Hudson and team.
The positive, celebratory feeling coming from the ME fan community, before game launch, was incredible. We were all certain this would be the game of our lives. I said that I would buy every single piece of DLC, just as I had done with ME2, and I meant it. There was not a shadow of doubt on my mind.

And you go to those blogs now, and what do you see?... An emotional wasteland.

Now, some may say that we had such high expectations that disappointment was inevitable. I disagree. The negative reaction to the ending of Mass Effect 3 is unparalleled to anything I have seen in my life as a gamer. It wasn't a wave of discontentment, it was a tsunami. Why? Why did it happen?

Because BioWare crafted a wonderful universe of science fiction, reminiscent of the ingenuity of Star Trek and classic sci-fi novels and series, but still incredibly original and wonderfully detailed. We fell in love with it. And in the final minutes of ME3 we saw this world shattered to pieces, for no valid narrative reason, and we saw the characters we bonded so strongly, Shepard and friends, deny their very nature and the motivations they carried throughout the entire trilogy.

Shepard says, in the beginning of ME3, that "we fight or we die". And in the end we where not given a chance to fight. Maybe we will still die, but we would still choose to fight against all odds instead of giving it all up.

And this is my opinion; an opinion shared, apparently, by at least 64.000 people. The ending is, objectively, bad. Having said that, Mass Effect 3 is not my game. BioWare doesn't owe "me", personally, anything.

But as a fan, as a devoted, passionate lover of this series, I will say that I'm entitled to express this: BioWare may not owe me anything, but they have an obligation towards the Mass Effect series. They have an obligation to defend its integrity, in terms of what it represents, its values, its quality as a cohesive, narrative and artistic work. And we have the right to demand that!

And that's what at stakes here. Is the resolution of Mass Effect 3 faithful to the values of the series, or is it a violation of them? In the end, all that matters, really, is BioWare's answer to that question. Not general argumentations on whether they should or should not change the game because "some fans this" and "some fans that".

What is most regrettable, though, is that all we can interpret from BioWare's silence is that none of this matters. It all comes down to the cold-blooded analysis of the numbers, in a market perspective. And in the end of the day, looking at their pie charts and worksheets, if loosing a part of their fanbase is an acceptable collateral damage, when compared to the consequences of assuming an error, they won't care about anything else.

Not even about the future of Mass Effect.

What an awesome post!

[translationninja]

Amioran wrote...

translationninja wrote...
Hitler and skinheads and Ghaddafi all in one post about a video game.

Never heard about the term "metaphor"?

Never heard the term "utterly tasteless" ??? Or the term "socially unacceptable" ??? Or the term "very inappropriate"??? Or...... oh whatever...

Your assertion that "Hitler and Ghaddafi metaphors" are perfectly fine in the context of discussing a video game has basically validated what many think of you to begin with.

I think the opinions of a person believing that such "metaphor'ing" is in any form or shape even remotely acceptable in any context whatsoever need no further discussion... you kind of gave yourself the coup de grace right then and there.

Pretty sure though you don't even understand how telling what you said there is...

[aberdash]

translationninja wrote...

Never heard the term "utterly tasteless" ??? Or the term "socially unacceptable" ??? Or the term "very inappropriate"??? Or...... oh whatever...

Your assertion that "Hitler and Ghaddafi metaphors" are perfectly fine in the context of discussing a video game has basically validated what many think of you to begin with.

I think the opinions of a person believing that such "metaphor'ing" is in any form or shape even remotely acceptable in any context whatsoever need no further discussion... you kind of gave yourself the coup de grace right then and there.

Pretty sure though you don't even understand how telling what you said there is...

Hows the view from that high horse?

[aberdash]

slyguy200 wrote...

Ever heard of ad-hominem, you are both using it. 
Then again so is the OP, and he still thinks that he is smarter than everyone...

Was ad-hominem the word of the day on your calender one day this week?

[SalsaDMA]

translationninja wrote...

Amioran wrote...

hex23 wrote...
Amioran, just stop. I would say "while you're ahead", but you've been getting killed more or less since the first page. Just accept your loss and move on.

Objectivity FTW!

The only thing it remains to do for you, to complete the picture, is to join some skinhead movement and start pretending, as they do, that Hitler won the war and that the holocaust never existed to begin with.

You remind me of Gheddafi, that on Sirte, completely sorrounded by NATO troups, started to say, pretending it was real: "you americans have clearly lost, can't you see it? The only thing you can do is to retire, just accept your loss and move on (ED: do you see some similarity?)". The day after all he had left was lost, and well, everybody knows the story.

Same exact thing. His most faithful group believed this blindly, no matter the fact of the NATO having sorrounded them and taken Tripoli just the day before.

One thing is sure, you (in general) are funny, in the same sense as Gheddafi was...

Hitler and skinheads and Ghaddafi all in one post about a video game.

Dude, you're insane, I mean really, you need help. I don't say that in the derogatory insult manner but in a manner of genuine concern for you. You should talk to someone.

30 pages of your deluded postulations. You use language that is mindblowing. Someone says "hey I'm out", you respond "see I prove...blahblah....evidence...blahblah....I'm right.

You have issues man, just go and talk to someone professional about it, it can really make your life a lot better.

Maybe he was just hoping that he could get the thread locked with such blatant pulls toward a thread lock?

It's obvious he has nothing to stand on, so by getting the thread locked he could probably delude himself into it meaning himself as being 'right', since nobody could argue against him anymore...

Not the most logical thing, but given the traits he's been leaking left and right I wouldn't find it inconsistent with his past and current behaviour...

[Amioran]

slyguy200 wrote...
Name a few of these facts without outright directly insulting anybodies intelligence in the process(i doubt that you actually can, this just means that you know your  idea is complete garbage) and maybe more of us could take you seriously, until then you can continue with the ad hominem and just be taken as a troll. 

You have insulted me from the start both directly and indirectly. Do you want me to give you the other cheek? I'm not Jesus Christ.

As for not insulting your intelligence that's a very difficult proposition to apply given your obvious low IQ and the fact that you pretend instead to judge me on this point, as when you say that "what I say makes no sense". It would be the same as if a man weighting 300lbs would insist on pestering another that weights 80 that he should do more sport activity; it would be difficult for this last to refrain from making him notice the truth, isn't it?

Then stop using this "ad hominem" that you must have learned recently. You obviously don't know what it means really and it shows and you just look ridicolous the more you use it. You seem like a child using the word p*ssy without either understanding what it is, just because he heard it somewhere. 

slyguy200 wrote...
This is the internet, who the ****  cares about dignity, obvously not you. And your judgement that you put in the topic is no more than a poorly constructed straw hut.

Ah, so in internet your personal dignity doesn't count anything, I get it. Good to know. You have high moral standards, I see.

And for my judgment in the topic is perfectly fine, in fact I proved all of you wrong all the times (and either more many times you proved wrong one with the other trying to do the contrary). You just support each other's to mask the fact, and that's the only thing you have, but it counts very little for what it concerns, again, your diginity as an individual.

[Amioran]

translationninja wrote...
Never heard the term "utterly tasteless" ??? Or the term "socially unacceptable" ??? Or the term "very inappropriate"??? Or...... oh whatever...

Never thought about the fact that twisting every time what the other says, insulting others in the back, blaming others for your errors, never reading anything at all either if the other tries to explain everything, dismissing every explanation with just two words, pretending to be experts of things you know anything about and so on, are even more, how do you say... "very inappropriate", "utterly tastless" and "socially unacceptable"????

So, you see, the methapors made very sense, both from a purely technical point and both from a moral one.

Maybe you should start considering that what the other writes can have more subtlety than what you can consider at face value.

But, I'm sorry, you are right, you are not used to this given your "friends", so you couldn't imagine something as that.

translationninja wrote...
Your assertion that "Hitler and Ghaddafi metaphors" are perfectly fine in the context of discussing a video game has basically validated what many think of you to begin with.

They are fine as are the other things I mentioned and that happened in this very forum, perpetuaded both by you and your "friends".

But I suppose that since now I am the one doing it and you are the "victim" of the situation (and not me) everything must change, isn't it?

translationninja wrote...
I think the opinions of a person believing that such "metaphor'ing" is in any form or shape even remotely acceptable in any context whatsoever need no further discussion... you kind of gave yourself the coup de grace right then and there.

Same here, my friend, same here.

Also I think that the opinions of people that always twist everything one says, pretend to be right even when they are factually wrong, don't care to read anything the other says, insult the other in the back as 2 years old children, put words in the others mouth, dismiss everything of detailed the other writes with just two sentence completely disregarding all the content of the post, judging all that happens in a biased way and so on and so forth (I could go on all day) are not to be accepted in any form of shape and people as these need no further discussion and they gave themselves the coup de grace doing it all the time.

So, you see, you just reap what you sow.

Have fun.

Modifié par Amioran, 03 mai 2012 - 04:23 .

[AkiKishi]

Amioran wrote...
And for my judgment in the topic is perfectly fine, in fact I proved all of you wrong all the times (and either more many times you proved wrong one with the other trying to do the contrary). You just support each other's to mask the fact, and that's the only thing you have, but it counts very little for what it concerns, again, your diginity as an individual.

If by proved wrong you mean in the same way that devotees of ID prove evolution wrong. Then yes you have..

[Amioran]

slyguy200 wrote...
Tell you what, the moment you tell me my real life name, i will begin to care about my online dignity.

Because if you don't have your "real name" your dignity doesn't count. A good concept. LOL.

slyguy200 wrote...
Me? Insult you? Yes, i did, but nowhere where it wasn't deserved.

Oh, so now I did "deserve" it, I understand.
Well then, in this case, you "deserve" it too. Are we square?

slyguy200 wrote...
My IQ is not low, i just don't want to type very much in my responses, if that is what you are getting at. And long responses don't make you seem smart. they make you seem like a jack***.

Also this makes perfectly sense, as all you write, and then you wonder why I insist you have a poor IQ.
So now long responses make you look as a jack***, I get it.
Why don't you bring this great philosophy on an academy? You would win the nobel prize, I'm sure.

I don't know no more who is more idiot, me that even care to read what you write at this point, or you that write it.

slyguy200 wrote...
I know what it means. Why don't you tell "educate" me on its meaning, seeing as i am missing something.

A detailed response cannot be an ad hominem. It is a ineherent contradiction.

Modifié par Amioran, 03 mai 2012 - 04:16 .

[Amioran]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Amioran wrote...
And for my judgment in the topic is perfectly fine, in fact I proved all of you wrong all the times (and either more many times you proved wrong one with the other trying to do the contrary). You just support each other's to mask the fact, and that's the only thing you have, but it counts very little for what it concerns, again, your diginity as an individual.

If by proved wrong you mean in the same way that devotees of ID prove evolution wrong. Then yes you have..

No, more in the sense I already elencated (that are evident examples, only a biased individual as you cannot notice it) or also on the sense of the example of Faust I did to to you some time ago.

Also in that case you were proven wrong, no matter if you acknowledge it or not.

If you are not sure try to show that post to someone that knows a little about what's written in there, and you will have a confirmation.

Modifié par Amioran, 03 mai 2012 - 04:13 .

[Il Divo]

Can't we all just get along?

[Amioran]

slyguy200 wrote...
You insult me, i insult you. But you started

*I* started?

LOL.

Some things never change. If you are born a trumpet you cannot play violin, I suppose.

Whatever.

Continue the discussion (in general) if you want. I had enough.

[iamthedave3]

Amioran wrote...

Have fun.

I've finished here.

It's funny... I read this a page ago...

*scans page*

Seems that you're posting more than any other single poster in this thread. A strange and inconsistent thing this is, quite beyond the understanding of mortal men. Science alone can solve this dilemma, vexing as it is.

[Amioran]

slyguy200 wrote...
You have been proven wrong whether you acknowledge it or not. By me or the others here, you have.

I said I will end here, but here It is too funny the thing to stop (and I'm also waiting to finish a thing, if someone reply to a certain thing).

I provided you examples, seven, on were you (in general) were FACTUALLY wrong, so let's see if you can do the same.

Provide me some examples on where you (you? ahahahaha) or others here "proved" me wrong. Factually, not your "hypotesis" as always, motivate them (and please don't twist the thing as you always do).

Let's see if A) you can write a post longer than two sentences, you actually will say something of concrete for a time.

slyguy200 wrote...
Your entire point in this topic is a bunch of biased set garbage, and much of it cancels itself out. It would have been okay if you hadn't decided to bias the entire thing to fit your pro-end motives.

There's nothing of  "pro-end" in what I wrote, since from the original post. It is just how you wanted to look at the thing because you have no other way to behave.

So, all you say ("it would have been okay" etc.) it is obviously (again) proven wrong by the way you did behave.

Modifié par Amioran, 03 mai 2012 - 04:59 .

[iamthedave3]

Oh why not. I'll wall of text a little for the OP.

but please try to be civil and respectful or I will simply ignore you).

This was a blatant lie, by the way, and I draw this from the facts created by your own posts in the thread that resulted. A bad beginning.

Either if the ending was really "badly written" (questionable, but whatever) this is not, by this point, anymore a plausible parameter (as explained before) on which to base the decision, because also if it is really so, some that now like the ending as it is are tied emotionally to the same, no matter what.

Wrong. It remains a plausible parameter because it is shipped by a company which claims to care most about story. Ergo if the company can be swayed to believe there is a flaw in their story it is a valid parameter to change that story so that they continue to live up to their own self-image and promotion.

Furthermore, perceived public outrage or future change of opinion on Bioware is a further valid parameter, and I would guess the actual reason for the extended cut DLC. Bioware like any company is afraid of angering its fanbase, upon whom they rely for future sales. They're pretty sure they can soften the reaction by clearing up the most egregious errors in the current ending, and in this they are almost certainly correct. Many, many games have bad endings. ME 3 can just be another of them.

The product shipped in a certain way, the ending is already as it is. In the case of changing an ending now that would mean doing an action that annhiliates a part of the audience, that's completely different than simply having people dislike what you did to begin with

This is complete rubbish. The part of the audience affected would only be annihilated if they viewed the changed content and were so disgusted that they then stopped playing (resulting in a similar scenario to the current one). However it depends entirely upon their reaction to the change, and you cannot say in advance what that reaction would be. In an ideal scenario everyone would prefer the changed ending, or at worst like both endings and come away from the game without any anger.

In other words they could change the ending without any terrible concern that they would actually lose fans, which renders this particular point of yours null and void.

In changing the ending they could recapture a part of the audience they have lost, with a very limited chance of losing other fans they currently have.

Expecting something more would just mean that you pretend something that cannot happen

It can happen. They choose not to make it happen.

and not only for technical motivations (as it can be "artistic intergrity"

Artistic integrity is an artistic reason, not a technical one. Those are entirely separate fields. A technical motivation would be if they did not have access to the technology to portray a concept in the ending, or to create a crucial scene needed to change the ending, or if the entire ME 3 code was simultaneously deleted from every computer in the world requiring it to be rebuilt from scratch.

- Fallout 3: the ending has NOT changed as people want Bioware to change the ending of ME. It is just a sort of "expansion" as it can be the EC, because the outcomes are exactly the same, you get only to have some more decisions on them. The ending has not changed at all, the same things happens in their context, the difference is only on the execution of the same, nothing more.

The ending of Fallout 3 sees your character reduced to a puddle of goo. In fact it is a key philosophical component of that ending that your character be reduced to a puddle of goo and it comes down like a moral ton of bricks on anyone who chooses not to be reduced to a puddle of goo.

Broken Steel completely changed the character of this (awful) ending, and anyone who cannot see this either somehow failed to understand the ending of Fallout 3 or hasn't played it.

[Amioran]

iamthedave3 wrote...
This was a blatant lie, by the way, and I draw this from the facts created by your own posts in the thread that resulted. A bad beginning.

Because I expected something completely different. I expected flames, I expected insults but I didn't expect people with no dignity whatsoever.

iamthedave3 wrote...
Wrong. It remains a plausible parameter because it is shipped by a company which claims to care most about story. Ergo if the company can be swayed to believe there is a flaw in their story it is a valid parameter to change that story so that they continue to live up to their own self-image and promotion.

1. A story is built also around non-technical parameters, as an opinion. It doesn't exist a wrong opinion. You can like, for example, a story objectively badly-written. So a story can be good depending on the point of view also if technically it can also not be. Given this, "flaws" in this case (and for what it concerns the particular topic you replied to) are just a matter of, again, opinions.

2. If you want to change something, it is better you do it the fast as possible. By now people are emotionally attached to the story as it is (those who like it), so it becomes less and less plausible to change it, either if Bioware would. The more time it pass, the more variables adds to a work, of whatever type. A typical example of this happened with the car producer Fiat. They wanted to change the very old model of the 500, but they couldn't because it became a "protected" one. Time modified greatly what they could do (or not do) with their products.

iamthedave3 wrote...
Bioware like any company is afraid of angering its fanbase, upon whom they rely for future sales. They're pretty sure they can soften the reaction by clearing up the most egregious errors in the current ending, and in this they are almost certainly correct. Many, many games have bad endings. ME 3 can just be another of them.

A thing is correcting superficial "errors", as adding more closure, that can be good for ALL (also for those that don't care about closure, because anyway it's mostly seen as inoffensive). Another completely different thing is changing the context as people would like to in this case.

iamthedave3 wrote...
This is complete rubbish. The part of the audience affected would only be annihilated if they viewed the changed content and were so disgusted that they then stopped playing (resulting in a similar scenario to the current one). However it depends entirely upon their reaction to the change, and you cannot say in advance what that reaction would be. In an ideal scenario everyone would prefer the changed ending, or at worst like both endings and come away from the game without any anger.

Apart that this had NOTHING to do with what you replied to (that was a reference to support being not existent on leaving a product as it is) so I don't understand what the "rubbish" is for (as always I get people telling me what I say is "rubbish" and yet they neither understand what's written to begin with), the thing works in both ways you know. It is just becasue you CANNOT know the reaction that you cannot base a decision on it (of whatever type, not only what you would like).

If they would be sure that the thing would be taken fine it would be all another thing. Uncertainty is the worst thing for a company.

iamthedave3 wrote...
In other words they could change the ending without any terrible concern that they would actually lose fans, which renders this particular point of yours null and void.

And what would be these "miracolous parameters"? I already elencated the motives why people who like the ending probably would neither tolerate a DLC adding a new one to the same, and you can see here in this same forum (in another thread) that these motives are factually true.

So, imagine yourself in changing the ending what it would happen. It is common sense, btw. Just like you don't like the ending as it is, those who like it would not like to see it changed. I cannot understand how you could think otherwise.

iamthedave3 wrote...
In changing the ending they could recapture a part of the audience they have lost, with a very limited chance of losing other fans they currently have.

?????

This based on which theory? Very limited chance? So you say that changing an ending for those that like it that way would have a "very limited chance" of making them angry? As you prefer...

iamthedave3 wrote...
Artistic integrity is an artistic reason, not a technical one. Those are entirely separate fields. 

Art is tied also to technical parameters, and "artistic integrity" is tied to some of these parameters.

Yet another one that talks of things he doens't anything about pretending to be an expert, I see.

I studied at the art academy, I perfectly know of what I talk about, thanks. So don't try to say me what's what in this case. They are not "separate fields" at all.