510 réponses à ce sujet

[NexusIsaac]

Makes sense. I'm with you here.

[CerberusCheerleader]

XTR3M3 wrote...

CerberusCheerleader wrote...

Amioran wrote...

tl;dr

Bioware cannot change the ending because this would ****** off the people who like the ending as it is, is that what you are saying? If it is than you are absolutly right. They wouldn't do that. Not going to happen.

BUT:
what they could do is to fork the last part of the game and provide a complete alternative to the current ending, so that you would have two endings (the current one and one that would actually make sense) which would be equally valid. I don't see how that would offend anyone (and they wouldn't even have to admitt that the current ending sucks). Everyone would win.

I said basically the same thing earlier and they went off on some "it would be out of context" tangent.

Ok, I read the OPs replys to your posts and I'm not even sure I understand what he is going on about in some of these BUT explanations can be difficult at times and in my experience examples are often the way to go. So, here is an example of what a forked, alternative ending dlc could be like:

Size of the dlc: the last two missions of me3 (Cerberus station and Earth)
Scenario: before you attack the cerberus station Admiral Hacket contacts you and tells you that they found evidence for a Prothean scientist on planet X. You now have a choice: 
a) attack the station ('normal' ending) or
b) fly to planet X and get the scientist (new dlc ending). You would than play planet X and after that e.g. a mission to retake the citadel from the reapers before they can transport it back to earth. You would than use the scientist to implement changes to the Crucible and thus have a different ending of whatever kind.
(I'm obviously no writer, but something to that extend).

Now: how would this be offensive to anyone? Remember, this is a non-linear RPG, it is supposed to have multiple endings.

[xdonnyliciousx]

I disagree with op. At the end of the day, it's about the fans. There are those fans who care about the franchise, the game and the company and want to see good things happen to the company because of the games they make. These are the fans promoting through word of mouth, dedicating time and money on internet pages and sites, and participating in these types of social forums and media. These are the fans that make the company better. Then you have the casual gamer that plays for fun once and never touches it again.
Now, many of these "core" fans were clearly disappointed with the ending and they cared enough to voice their opinion. (There are a lot developers out their who, I'm sure, wish they had 65,000 users let alone users who want a better ending)
Of course there is no one ending pleases all, and of course Bioware can't cater to all tastes, but the hardcore fans have clearly spoken that they know a good ending from a generic ending, a good game from a generic game. They are more sophisticated than that and have come to expect nothing less from their games.
So Bioware has to make a decision; they can either heed this criticism and adjust their games accordingly, or quite simply, these "core" fans will move on to something better.

[SalsaDMA]

MattFini wrote...

They can do whatever they want.

Because there's no precedent for it doesn't mean they couldn't man up and change their garbage endings.

The problem is they'd be admitting they were wrong, which would be a PR disaster and tank the game's market value.

Considering how fast the price for the game tanked, I wouldn't predict any big further losses there, tbh.

I remember when I was following the prices and even on Origins store saw it priced the same price as ME2...

Haven't bothreed following the price for a while, but the damage have been done already to the perceived value of the game.

[JyrikGauldy]

its dlc, so a different ending would be OPTIONAL

[SalsaDMA]

AlanC9 wrote...

Has anyone else had enough of people linking to YouTube videos rather than making their own arguments? Actually, SalsaDMA didn't even bother to do that much.

They're easy enough to find, and they explain pretty well what the issues are.

Why should I sit down and write what those videos say already perfectly well?

And alan, they are mentioned because they refute claims that some people make. It would be silly NOT to mention them in these debates.

[AlanC9]

I think they don't further debate. Whatever's on those videos can't be contested here , or even be properly discussed.

It's also incredibly lazy of you.

But don't bother linking one on my account -- I woudln't watch it anyway.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 avril 2012 - 10:28 .

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Has anyone else had enough of people linking to YouTube videos rather than making their own arguments? .

Difficult to say. At the least, it's hell on wheels trying to quote or single out a specific point. Articles are a bit better since I can at least throw them into the familiar quote blocks.

Modifié par Il Divo, 30 avril 2012 - 10:29 .

[AlanC9]

Yeah, articles are fine.

As for the topic: CerberusCheerleader, does your proposal replace the proposed EC, or is it an altogether separate project?

[xdonnyliciousx]

My only beef would be: you had a fantastic build up throughout the game, curing the Genophage, brokering peace between the Quarians and the Geth, rekindling old relationships. then you kind of have this abrupt ending, where all the choices you made throughout all three games kind of disappear with the sunset that your crew members look off into. But I guess that doesn't really matter because you die anyway. Also there was no boss fight. I was expecting some insanely difficult super boss with over the top cut scenes and action sequences to really nail everything home, but no, you talk to a ghost child. Oh well, leaves more room for DLC's?

[CAlNlAC]

I'm sure there are several way for Bioware to fix the ending while still keeping both sides happy. Heres an idea I though of.

They can keep the Starchild and the endings as they are currently in the game intact. All Bioware would need to do is add a means for the player to challenge the Starchild's logic which is what I think most people who dislike the ending have a problem with, its not the Starchild itself but that his flawed logic is forced onto you no if and or buts which is totally out of character for Shep.  

Bioware could just add some new high level paragon/renegade interupts during the conversation with the Starchild at the appropriate times. Doing so could then lead to a different outcome with a few more ending options to choose from.

And there you have it. Those who like the ending as is still have it and those who do not would have new ending options to consider. Everybody wins.

[nocbl2]

That's why they're not changing the ending. They're just adding to it (I believe the EC is only an added epilogue, yes?) from what I understand.

[Atakuma]

nocbl2 wrote...

That's why they're not changing the ending. They're just adding to it (I believe the EC is only an added epilogue, yes?) from what I understand.

It's true, they are only adding to it, however we don't actually know the extent of the additions.

[Amioran]

deatharmonic wrote...
before, after, they still did it and its just as bad either side of production. I dont think it would factor into why they're not chaning the ending. The reasons are probably more pragmatic than that. Maybe the cost isn't worth the risk etc.

You do purposefully completely ignore what I write?

Before and after make a lot of difference. Think about it, I cannot lose time explaining to you very simple concepts.

deatharmonic wrote...

Amioran wrote... 
And anyway, apart this, it didn't seem to me that it did good to them doing so, isn't it? So you are actually proving my point.

seriously re-read this, it doesn't make sense. No idea what you're getting at there.

It means that with your example you did prove the points on my post.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 07:39 .

[Amioran]

Il Divo wrote...
I'd argue that's exactly what it means. And it's very much true. Numbers matter. When Bioware chooses to listen to criticism that says "We hate exploration" they're ignoring their audience that loves exploration. That Bioware may not have a perfect method to determine whether or not this group is a majority does not change the fact that Bioware's method of decision-making has always resulted in one fan's opinion being ignored and another's favored.

That's a different concept. You can base the choice of removing exploration on non-arbitrary motivations, as the fact that they were objectively not well done technically (that's a different thing than having an opinion or the "objective parameters" people pretend are there on why ME ending is bad) and anyway they didn't remove the exploration from the first game, but after.

For another title you can change things without alieanating the audience in the same way as if you change somenthing already existent that you remove/alter. They have two separate repercussions.

A product before being being published is exclusively of the authors in the pure emotional content, when it gets published the thing changes.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 07:54 .

[Amioran]

Pride Demon wrote...
following the same reasoning, keeping the ending as is, even if they explain it, is like saying that those that like are more correct that those that don't.

No, because is not a change. The product was this from beginning and it remains intact. Those who don't like the ending can dislike the product, but that's another thing. They don't go against these people because they simply keep the product what it is, because it has always been (from beginning) in this way.

[Amioran]

SalsaDMA wrote...
There are youtube videos detailing just why the ending is bad from an objective point of view using the tools of literature. Nothing subjective there.

Yes, YouTube videos are good proof of something, how not. The majority of YouTube users are experts of literature, sure. Are you kidding me?

Your "objectivity" just demonstrate that you have no idea of what you are talking about. All those videos are complete crap, those people know absolutely anything about the theme (that every either mediocre student of literature know almost perfectly, so here there goes your "experts of literature"), and yet they want to judge the narrative.
 
It doesn't matter if you like/don't like what you have, without the context you cannot judge objectively a narrative, there's no way.

Your "videos" have the same value as the judgment of an ape on a work of Leonardo (and not because I consider ME on par of works of Leonardo, it is just an example).

Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 08:02 .

[Amioran]

CerberusCheerleader wrote...
Size of the dlc: the last two missions of me3 (Cerberus station and Earth)
Scenario: before you attack the cerberus station Admiral Hacket contacts you and tells you that they found evidence for a Prothean scientist on planet X. You now have a choice: 
a) attack the station ('normal' ending) or
b) fly to planet X and get the scientist (new dlc ending). You would than play planet X and after that e.g. a mission to retake the citadel from the reapers before they can transport it back to earth. You would than use the scientist to implement changes to the Crucible and thus have a different ending of whatever kind.
(I'm obviously no writer, but something to that extend).

I've already replied to this to two different users, but anyway.

1. It is anyway a change in the philosophy of the product as it is. There will be some people who would not like it and since the product was in another way in the start, that would be alienating them for no motive whatsoever.

2. It is too complex to explain it here but it will not work. The context in the two "branches" would be too different. The result would be a mess.

[Amioran]

ChookAttack wrote...

chengda85 wrote...

can someone please summarize this **** in 10 words or less

"I'm right, you are all wrong. Objectively."

You people really like to read things only as you want, I see.

[Robhuzz]

If there are people around who somehow like the current ending (can't fathom it myself but people have different tastes) then they're going to LOVE the endings if BioWare actually puts some work into them. So even these people will be happy with a rewrite.

[Amioran]

slyguy200 wrote...

I don't see any real reasons. You can't compare a dog's genes to a video-game. The thing about admitting who is right goes both ways, and you are clearly ignoring that.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. It is you that ignore the difference between the two. The product is already shipped and it is in a certain way.

I'm sure that if you think a little (I know you are usually not accustomed to this, but I'm positive that you can do it) you can understand by yourself the differences.

slyguy200 wrote...
You have been pro-end from the start, why should i trust anything you say as being good for both sides? Cause what you have said means that BW only intends to help the pro-end crowd and all the yes-men within it, which is only good for you and the pro-end crowd.

No, it's not. I just mention why AS THE THING IS NOW, it's impossible for Bioware to do a change.

Do you understand that your opinion is no better than that of the others? Do you understand that the product is shipped in a way? Do you understand that a change would have to be based on purely abitrary basis?

Then, just so you know, if for a chance Bioware would decide to change the ending I would not create a "Restore ME" movement to restore the ending as it was before. I would understand the point of view of the others that don't like the ending and respect their opinions and have them enjoy the fruits of the same.

But instead you, not content of being individuals having absolutely no tolerance on others' points of view, either expect Bioware to do the same and prefer your opinion to those of others that like the ending, do you get what idiocy this is?

Leaving the product as it is is not preferring a point of view just because no action is done. The product shipped in a way and it remains in that way. This doesn't mean that they prefer the opinion of those who like the ending, simply because the ending was already in this way. Doing a change instead mean that you DO AN ACTION that it implies that you think part of the audience is better than the other.

Think about it, I'm sure you can get the difference between the two.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 07:46 .

[Amioran]

CAlNlAC wrote...
They can keep the Starchild and the endings as they are currently in the game intact. All Bioware would need to do is add a means for the player to challenge the Starchild's logic which is what I think most people who dislike the ending have a problem with, its not the Starchild itself but that his flawed logic is forced onto you no if and or buts which is totally out of character for Shep.  

Again, some people (like me) like the way it is done.

Why I like it? Because it is perfectly consistent with the theme of the narrative. I perfectly understand that many of you know nothing at all about what I'm talking about, but yet I don't consider my opinion better than yours. I may consider your judgment faulted, but you are entitled absolutely to your opinon anyway.

If the game was incosistent with the theme (as you would like it to be) I would not require Bioware to change the same (either if I would know the fallacies) just because I could understand that people may like it that way.

This is tolerance of others' point of views not only in talk but in practice. It is too easy to say "I respect your different opinion" and then doing all you can to remove the possibility of that opinion to apply.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 07:52 .

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Bioware are the creators of Mass Effect if they wanted to they could rewrite everything in Mass Effect if they so wished. Just look at Star Wars.

Modifié par Harbinger of your Destiny, 01 mai 2012 - 07:54 .