181 réponses à ce sujet

[Baa Baa]

This is something that I don't understand on BioWare's part. Movies get released all the time with alternate endings that just weren't right for theaters, why can't BioWare give us an alternate ending to the game? It wouldn't ****** off the people who enjoy the ending, and the people who dislike/hated the ending can be pleased as well (if they spend a good amount of time on it). Another thing I dislike about them deciding not to give us a new or changed ending is the fact that they think that it will damage them in some way. Bethesda did this with Fallout 3 and that wasn't even a terrible ending, it was just very meh. And look at them, Bethesda is known as one of the best gaming companies out there and it hasn't negatively affected them. All BioWare needs to do is make an alt ending dlc and not an update. This way pro enders can get what they want, and people who dislike the ending can get what they want. Just my two cents.

Oh and I just couldn't help but share this vid...
Thanks for reading

Modifié par Baa Baa, 08 mai 2012 - 01:24 .

[Taboo]

$

[Archereon]

It's because Casey Hudson wants the series to end with Mass Effect 3. Whatever they do, it'll change things in a way that still makes a followup to ME3 impossible.

[G Kevin]

I would pay for alternate endings DLC. Only if done right though.

[JBPBRC]

Baa Baa wrote...

This is something that I don't understand on BioWare's part. Movies get released all the time with alternate endings that just weren't right for theaters,

Or in the case of George Lucas, made worse AFTER the theaters.

But yeah, $$$.

Just waiting on that Mass Effect: MMO announcement from EA any day now.

Or Mass Effect: Special Forces--Call of the Battlefield!

[Reign762]

All of us can speculate on why, but the core reason will never truly be known unless Ray Muzyka actually comes clean. And when he does admit to why then we actually have to believe him. Given the track record of misleading statements from Bioware I don't think we'll ever really know the rationality behind it.

[carrmatt91]

Archereon wrote...

It's because Casey Hudson wants the series to end with Mass Effect 3. Whatever they do, it'll change things in a way that still makes a followup to ME3 impossible.

if they wanted it to end with mass effect 3 then why kill off shepard only for you to see a cliffhanger of an ending of him/her breathingfor a second (if you do well enough) just for the game to end with stargazer telling the kid that theres one more story? and on top of that add no closure to show what happens after the battle anyway?

[The RPGenius]

It would set the dangerous precedent of giving the consumer a product he or she doesn't hate.

[_aLucidMind_]

Because it would be admitting that they made a mistake, and adults should never own up to their mistakes. That is, unless you're mature and reasonable.

[Devil Mingy]

carrmatt91 wrote...

Archereon wrote...

It's because Casey Hudson wants the series to end with Mass Effect 3. Whatever they do, it'll change things in a way that still makes a followup to ME3 impossible.

if they wanted it to end with mass effect 3 then why kill off shepard only for you to see a cliffhanger of an ending of him/her breathingfor a second (if you do well enough) just for the game to end with stargazer telling the kid that theres one more story? and on top of that add no closure to show what happens after the battle anyway?

To paraphrase a quote from Bioware's PAX conference, they didn't know we wanted closure.

[Rxdiaz]

It's money.
Why should they spend a ton of money fixing up this crappy ending?
I'm not trying to be facetious here either. The ending is so completely screwed up that it would require tons of work to fix it. What's in it for them?

Should they come out with a major dlc that retcons the whole ending for $15.00?
Fans would throw a fit about having paid full price for an unfinished game plus even more money for the ending.

EA BioWare is really stuck between a rock and a hard place...

[Draining Dragon]

The RPGenius wrote...

It would set the dangerous precedent of giving the consumer a product he or she doesn't hate.

You just won the extranet.

[RedCaesar97]

I would say for two reasons:
1) Good or bad, the writers do not want to create an ending that is different from their original vision, no matter how hated it is. I can respect that. You work so hard at something only to have a bunch of people hate it and demand you change it. The writers are protective of their work; I probably would be too in their situation.

2) Depending on how the game was coded, it may be impossible to switch out the original ending with a new ending, which is why the "Extended cut" can extend the ending but not change it.

Just my thoughts.

[sth88]

Pride. They believe their ending is good, and aren't willing to take any serious criticism (on issues of narrative, anyway) from their fans (you know, the people whose financial support made the making an entire trilogy possible, and whose support will be required in order to keep making games).

Also, their reputation with those in the established gaming media, who think that the ending was good and who view gamers as whiny entitled brats with no lives. It seems Bioware is more concerned with saving face amongst their buddies in the industry than they are with their customers.

Modifié par sth88, 08 mai 2012 - 01:37 .

[JamesFaith]

Bethesda didn't gave us new end to Fallout 3, they SOLD it to us.

[alec1898]

It's called admitting failure, It doesn't bode well on stock, just so ya know.

[carrmatt91]

Devil Mingy wrote...

carrmatt91 wrote...

Archereon wrote...

It's because Casey Hudson wants the series to end with Mass Effect 3. Whatever they do, it'll change things in a way that still makes a followup to ME3 impossible.

if they wanted it to end with mass effect 3 then why kill off shepard only for you to see a cliffhanger of an ending of him/her breathingfor a second (if you do well enough) just for the game to end with stargazer telling the kid that theres one more story? and on top of that add no closure to show what happens after the battle anyway?

To paraphrase a quote from Bioware's PAX conference, they didn't know we wanted closure.

but thats what confuses me, HOW can you end a story without some form of closure, its like the sopranos ending mid sent

[Aaleel]

Hubris

[ReXspec]

Money. Plain and simple. As sad as it is, Bioware has changed their prerogative from needing money to make games, to needing to make games in order to make money. EA's poisonous influence, no doubt...

Bioware still can't figure out that the fans can't be excluded from the proverbial conversation. Until they do figure it out, they will keep f*cking up.

Modifié par ReXspec, 08 mai 2012 - 01:36 .

[Afalstein]

There are a couple arguments against Bioware giving out a different ending. The first is logistical--depending on the complexity of the ending you want (different endings? That reflect your different decisions?), such an ending could require a lot of coding, even alterations to earlier segments of the game. And if you want voices, they have to hire the voice actors all over again and do new CGI sequences... an awful lot for something that Bioware would (hopefully) give out for free.

The second is more abstract and principled. In terms of storywriting, the ending is as much a part of the story as anything else. You can't say the ending to, say, Inception is stupid and ought to be changed, because it's an integral part of the story that informs and affects everything that came before.

That being said, the ending to "Inception" is a clever and wholly consistent ending while the one to ME3? Not quite so much. So while a part of me dislikes the idea of Bioware rewriting an ending--and essentially most of a game's point--simply to please fans; another part of me is a somewhat displeased fan who would like a better ending.

[SoloPala]

JamesFaith wrote...

Bethesda didn't gave us new end to Fallout 3, they SOLD it to us.

Broken Steel wasn't a new ending though, it just picked up where the game left off, and added quite a bit of content.

[sharkboy421]

alec1898 wrote...

It's called admitting failure, It doesn't bode well on stock, just so ya know.

They wouldn't even have to admit fault.  They could make a paid, alternate ending dlc and say "we realize our fans wanted more to the ending so we made this in response to their calls."  Similar to what they said about LotSB; people wanted more with Liara so they made a dlc giving her a central role.  Same type of thing could be done here.

[chemiclord]

Who knows why they don't want to change it? I don't. You don't. No one here does.

All that matters is that they don't want to, and its their right as creators of the property to not do so. If you don't like it... don't buy their **** anymore, and find something you DO like.

Problem solved.

[Larryboy_Dragon]

Not sure 'scared' is the right word.
They still don't think there is anything wrong with the current one.

[nhcre8tv1]

The RPGenius wrote...

It would set the dangerous precedent of giving the consumer a product he or she doesn't hate.

It sets a bad precident for other things if this were to happen again. People would be all like "WELL MASS EFFECT DID IT Y U NO U GUYS" and it gives a message out that all writers and studios can be pushed around, look at how we destroyed the Fallout 3 argument, when in reality it was the devs who changed it because THEY didn't like it, not because of the fan outcry, but that doesn't matter here, does it? No matter how you think of this, that WILL happen, and all writers would lose credibility.

Modifié par nhcre8tv1, 08 mai 2012 - 01:46 .