626 réponses à ce sujet

[WarBeagle01]

If members of the Bioware staff want to spout condescending statements like "Finally X person gets is", i.e., the others who have questioned anything are dumbasses, then that is fine. I can also "get" my ****** away from Bioware and their products. As a loyal fan for many many years, I've had nothing but respect for BW and the staff of ME. I think that what people are asking for isn't too much at all.

If BW thinks the owners of ME3 are zombies and we'll just gobble up whatever they create, they need to think again.

[Trellcus]

I think he would have a point if the last scenes didn't drastically alter so much of the universe that it begs so many many questions we don't get answers to.  Every single goodbye scene we got had it's entire meaning for where the characters were headed drastically altered when everybody got stranded and the fundamental structures of galactic civilization got destroyed.

Modifié par Trellcus, 12 mai 2012 - 02:36 .

[christrek1982]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Ok, stepping in here a second

1 - Duane is entitled to his opinion, just like you all are entitled to yours
2 - So is the writer of the article
3 - Duane is likely referencing that the person who wrote the article viewed the entire game of ME3 as an ending, which it is. This is what the team intended, which is the "gets it". Yes, you can discuss how successful we were or whatever, but this was the goal.
4 - Some people like the ending and they are welcome to express that here the same way that those who didn't like it express their opinions.
5 - Just because Duane does or doesn't feel a certain way doesn't mean anything about the Extended Cut.

first thank you for replying and yoare right everyone is free to express themselves and most of us wobe sad to see Shepherds story come to a close regardless of how itended but at the same time you have to understand that the game gaveme and maybe many other people the sense that there was hope even in such dark times only to reach the end and realise that no matter what the endings ar for all entasive purposes the same and that hope vanished it feels as if we lost the war and that the writers just wanted to wash there hand of Shepher and ME all together.

1
Normandy crash
2 relays gone
3 Shepherd dead

 

Modifié par christrek1982, 12 mai 2012 - 02:38 .

[Mann42]

Peregrin25 wrote...

I agree with you, the higher ups that own the developers like EA, Activision etc.. are the problem. Only problem now is. If BioWare were to sucessfully break off of EA or EA let them go (hypothetically speaking) Bioware would take a while to get back to where they were. Being with EA I am sure their president and ceo of BioWare are and have been influenced by the dark side of the force that is EA. I am sure that influence would still be there for a while. Trying to get rid of it is like trying to get rid of herpies. It always comes back

There is no chance that Bioware will ever be able or be allowed to buy themselves back from EA. There is only one major studio in the history of the universe that pulled that off: Bungie. And honestly, I have no idea how they did it. Most corporations would rather just fire everyone (Infinity Ward) and use the name until it's dirt than let a brand like Bungie go. I seriously suspect some manner of blackmail was involved. 

No, at this point, Bioware is a part of EA. They have achieved Synthesis, if you will. There is no separation. The leaders at Bioware are installed firmly into the executive and reward structure of EA, which has stated that it's primary goal is to shorten development time and sell less for more. 

The people that are most talented and passionate about making great games will flee as soon as it becomes too oppressive. The best and most creative at Bioware will eventually get fed up and go start their own studio, and we'll get that high quality indie feeling that we used to from Bioware in a different company. Then they'll get bought by a major publisher (Reaper), and the cycle will repeat. This is the cycle of game studios, and you can witness it happen again and again for the last 20 years. 

I know that making games is a business, and that deadlines are important, but a 2 year development cycle is not enough time for a dialogue and story heavy rpg-ish franchise like Mass Effect. What I really want to hear from Bioware and EA is that they won't release games until they're done anymore, ala Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. 

Modifié par nexworks, 12 mai 2012 - 02:45 .

[Peregrin25]

nexworks wrote...

Peregrin25 wrote...

I agree with you, the higher ups that own the developers like EA, Activision etc.. are the problem. Only problem now is. If BioWare were to sucessfully break off of EA or EA let them go (hypothetically speaking) Bioware would take a while to get back to where they were. Being with EA I am sure their president and ceo of BioWare are and have been influenced by the dark side of the force that is EA. I am sure that influence would still be there for a while. Trying to get rid of it is like trying to get rid of herpies. It always comes back

There is no chance that Bioware will ever be able or be allowed to buy themselves back from EA. There is only one major studio in the history of the universe that pulled that off: Bungie. And honestly, I have no idea how they did it. Most corporations would rather just fire everyone and use the name until it's dirt than let a brand like Bungie go. I seriously suspect some manner of blackmail was involved. 

No, at this point, Bioware is a part of EA. They have achieved Synthesis, if you will. There is no separation. The leaders at Bioware are installed firmly into the executive and reward structure of EA, which has stated that it's primary goal is to shorten development time and sell less for more. 

The people that are most talented and passionate about making great games will flee as soon as it becomes too oppressive. The best and most creative at Bioware will eventually get fed up and go start their own studio, and we'll get that high quality indie feeling that we used to from Bioware in a different company. This is the cycle of game studios, and you can witness it happen again and again for the last 20 years. 

I know that making games is a business, and that deadlines are important, but a 2 year development cycle is not enough time for a dialogue and story heavy rpg-ish franchise like Mass Effect. What I really want to hear from Bioware and EA is that they won't release games until they're done anymore, ala Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. 

I know, I mean that hypothetically lol. I wasn't necessarily serious. But you do make some good points. Just goes to show how greedy people can be. Not just game studios either. Music Industry has been like this for generations. It's getting worse too. I hope the gaming industry gets better. Video games are my only real escape aside from music. I have been an avid gamer for almpst 30 years and I dunno what I would do if I couldn't eascape into a good game.

[Chuvvy]

AHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHA Hooo. Bioware, still can't except they made **** ending. Oh by the way, the only good part of ME3 was Tuchanka, the rest was ****, it just got progressively more ****.

[WarBeagle01]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Ok, stepping in here a second

1 - Duane is entitled to his opinion, just like you all are entitled to yours
2 - So is the writer of the article
3 - Duane is likely referencing that the person who wrote the article viewed the entire game of ME3 as an ending, which it is. This is what the team intended, which is the "gets it". Yes, you can discuss how successful we were or whatever, but this was the goal.
4 - Some people like the ending and they are welcome to express that here the same way that those who didn't like it express their opinions.
5 - Just because Duane does or doesn't feel a certain way doesn't mean anything about the Extended Cut.

Good Job, Priestly. You're just solidifing the notion that many have regarding the condescening and relatively uncaraing attitude many members of the current BW staff possess. You know, those of us who got BW to where they are at really don't like being talked down to by Duane, Casey or any member of your staff. I think the egos have shot out of the stratoshere. I'm sure your masters at EA remind you of this, but you do realize that you sell things and the public purchases them and that's how you make your money, thus continuing your employment, right? 

Poor customer service/relationships catch up to all companies at one time or another. You reap  what  you sow. For me personally, a loyal fan for a LONG time, you're pushing me closer to the "destroy" ending regarding my involvement with your products. 

[PeterG1]

The article is honest and very well written. Im very happy for the author and think his views of the game are great and, in some degrees, I agree with him.

Because I agree with him, I understand, in this case, why Webb would say 'he gets it' but comeon man! What an insult to me personally and, Id imagine, to much of this community. I support you guys i want your work to succeed! I appreciate your games!

Okay, fine: this community can be harsh, maybe even mean to BW. So i understand. But for someone who was rocked by the endings, appreciate BW for the game, and yet am still critical (constructively i hope!) I find his comment personally offensive and insulting.

"Finally"....jeesh....

[Mann42]

Peregrin25 wrote...

I know, I mean that hypothetically lol. I wasn't necessarily serious. But you do make some good points. Just goes to show how greedy people can be. Not just game studios either. Music Industry has been like this for generations. It's getting worse too. I hope the gaming industry gets better. Video games are my only real escape aside from music. I have been an avid gamer for almpst 30 years and I dunno what I would do if I couldn't eascape into a good game.

The technology and the tools for making games is getting cheaper, more advanced and easier to use with every new generation of games. With more and more ways to self publish, you'll see tons more developers creating awesome, niche experiences that look like a high budget game. There will always people out there filled with dedication, passion and amazing ideas developing another amazing game, I can guarantee that. 

The big publishers like EA and Activision are most interested biggest budget stuff. They want to spend big and get paid really big. CoD is king, and if you're not breaking 5 million sold, you're not trying hard enough. "CoD does it in 2 years, with 50 million dollars, and makes 1 billion dollars plus. Any game that costs more, takes longer, and makes less isn't worth it anymore." is a real attitude at that level. (EA does do a lot of casual stuff and publish some indie studio games, so I'm not giving them enough credit, but it doesn't invalidate my point). 

Modifié par nexworks, 12 mai 2012 - 02:56 .

[2484Stryker]

So Return of the Jedi was one big ending, too? Then why does it matter if Luke managed to save Anakin or not? Why does it matter if the Death Star and Emperor were destroyed? After all, the movie was one big ending, right? I mean, Han Solo was saved, and Luke has become a Jedi, and the Rebellion is still alive & kicking...so if the Empire was finally defeated by Luke picking colors at random, then why not?

[soulprovider]

ReggarBlane wrote...


Duane Webb: Co-director of Production at BioWare. Franchise Project Manager for Mass Effect.

He is referring to this article.
My Mass Effect 3 Ending Lasted 34 Hours. It Was Wonderful.

The article essentially says that ME3 is one long goodbye to everyone and everything in Mass Effect.




I see several problems with that:
The manner that the game forces closure upon the players is more akin to shoving an unwanted guest out of one's home. You're unwelcome. Goodbye.

Sure. It's their prerogative. It's their home. We're just guests that seem to have overstayed our welcome somehow despite us accepting their invitation and cover charge to enter. At least, that's how it feels.





A game that is only a game ending is an incomplete game. This might actually be true since the game punishes players with lower TMS if they do not import saved games from the previous ones.

An ending-only episode sometimes works with novels and other media, but in that same vein, people typically do not enjoy reading only the final "goodbye" novel. For a game where some pro-reviewer raved that new players should start being a fan with ME3, this method makes little sense.

ME2 was able to stand alone. It had to. PS3 players didn't get a chance at ME1. Most games are able to stand on their own. As such, they have beginnings and endings each.

If ME3 is just one long ending, it's missing the rest of the game.





Now, they say players didn't reach closure and are releasing some cinematic content to achieve that. If a game was one long goodbye, players getting closure is likely not the problem. The Krogan's story: closure. Mordin's story: closure. Thane's story: closure. Udina and the council: closure. Geth and Quarians: closure. Prothean legacy: closure. Love Interest: closure. Friends: closure. Closure is everywhere.

Starkid and after: Do you really think that closure is going to solve this?





That article goes on to make a rather unfortunate comparison:

People play Super Mario to win. People play Tetris to see how long they can play before they lose. Sadly, Totilo trends ME3 to the latter. A plot/story-driven game is not supposed to be an endurance contest that always ends in a loss.

Totilo says that the whole point of the Mass Effect series is to keep as many friends alive as possible, grinding through ME3 to do it. Here, I thought Mass Effect was about the battle against the Reapers. Even if Totilo is correct, no matter what you do -- even if you endure grinding your TMS*GR=EMS -- you save, at most, only 3 of your friends.




If Totilo "gets it", then it seems to me that Totilo gets that a plot-driven game that is one long ending where the player must endurance grind in order to fail less is a good game.

I don't get that.

I don't even.......what?

Look I get that ME3 was a long goodbye thats fine but if your going to have your friends and companions sacrifice themselves heroically then you MUST do the same for the protaganist. There was no heroic sacrifice for shepard, there was no shepards actions saving the universe and so on there was only the sapranos ending where everything cuts to black and we're left with implications that go way beyond unpleasant, reaching a conclusion that no matter what you did you lose. That everything you did and all of your friends throughout the series was in vain.

But bioware doesn't get it, its not the fact that the third game was a goodbye its the fact that what they did for shepards allies the didn't do for shepard, and they did it in a way that breaks every storytelling and literature mechanic known to man.

[ashdrake1]

Hey Chris Priestly, just wanted to say I got it as well. I hope you are still reading this thread in spite of all the comic book guys.

Thanks you guys for the entirety of mass effect. By the end of ME2 the setting had become my favorite sci-fi setting in any form. My love for the setting and story only grew after completing the last installment.

Thank you for letting me experience this story.

Any word on when we can get some of the side quest dlc? Cause take my money. It is waiting.

Modifié par ashdrake1, 12 mai 2012 - 03:08 .

[LinksOcarina]

nexworks wrote...

Peregrin25 wrote...

I know, I mean that hypothetically lol. I wasn't necessarily serious. But you do make some good points. Just goes to show how greedy people can be. Not just game studios either. Music Industry has been like this for generations. It's getting worse too. I hope the gaming industry gets better. Video games are my only real escape aside from music. I have been an avid gamer for almpst 30 years and I dunno what I would do if I couldn't eascape into a good game.

The technology and the tools for making games is getting cheaper, more advanced and easier to use with every new generation of games. With more and more ways to self publish, you'll see tons more developers creating awesome, niche experiences that look like a high budget game. There will always people out there filled with dedication, passion and amazing ideas developing another amazing game, I can guarantee that. 

The big publishers like EA and Activision are most interested biggest budget stuff. They want to spend big and get paid really big. CoD is king, and if you're not breaking 5 million sold, you're not trying hard enough. "CoD does it in 2 years, with 50 million dollars, and makes 1 billion dollars plus. Any game that costs more, takes longer, and makes less isn't worth it anymore." is a real attitude at that level. (EA does do a lot of casual stuff and publish some indie studio games, so I'm not giving them enough credit, but it doesn't invalidate my point). 

Call of Duty is an exception to the rule though, because it is one of the few franchises that pretty much can deliver 5 million sold in a day. No one game series can do that in this economy anymore, no matter how hard they try sometimes.

In fact, most games are lucky if they break 1-2 million now a days, especially AAA titles like Mass Effect 3.Hell, Mass Effect 3 sold around 3 million units, putting it over the hump for Mass Effect 1 and bring all time sales (estimated) to around 13 million units sold without DLC or phone games or w/e.  (Mass Effect 2 I think had 6-7 million units sold, don't quote me though I might be wrong.) 

 The problem is CoD can't sustain itself anymore, because that bubble is bursting real soon...(i'm expecting the next CoD to not be a huge seller compared to Modern Warfare 3 personally) because Activisions strategy is to milk things for the short term without building a product base. Other, smaller time games like Prototype, the Cabela series, and 007 will never reach those numbers because they are not properly marketed or groomed to make it hit that light. Right now, Activision only has Skylanders and CoD to their name, along with Blizzard, whereas EA has a pilot program for smaller dev studios, a large corporate structure that is planning on increasing their core engineer staff, and is using their revenue not for income, but for investments for the long term.

So really, this attitude is kind of defeatist, but if that was the case EA wouldn't even try to make good games anymore, and I feel that is not true at all. Hell, no one will deny Mass Effect 3 is a competant, dare I say, amazing game, despite its myriad of issues. If EA didn't really care, they would have went with the FPS version of the game that was toyed with for the multiplayer.

[akenn312]

akenn312 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Ok, stepping in here a second

1 - Duane is entitled to his opinion, just like you all are entitled to yours
2 - So is the writer of the article
3 - Duane is likely referencing that the person who wrote the article viewed the entire game of ME3 as an ending, which it is. This is what the team intended, which is the "gets it". Yes, you can discuss how successful we were or whatever, but this was the goal.
4 - Some people like the ending and they are welcome to express that here the same way that those who didn't like it express their opinions.
5 - Just because Duane does or doesn't feel a certain way doesn't mean anything about the Extended Cut.

1. I do agree, Mr. Webb is entitled to his opinion, but rather than revealing your ultimate goal for the game on a sarcastic tweet, why not just say this out front? People respect your company and your game even if they are against the ending choices. Why treat them in this way? Why dismiss their opinions and call them "whiny babies"? Shouldn't you be the bigger person in this thing?


2. The writer of the article is basically patting you on the back again like the 75 other perfect scores. Have any of you ever taken into account the negative reviews on the ending confusion? or tried to understand that it's not that your ending is above our intelligence, but just basically we think its sub par on what we expected from the previous work you have done. Also that is a compliment. Not a insult. We love Mass Effect, but also we see you are going away from what we care about your RPG games also. 


3. Again Duane can send this tweet, but I find it very unprofessional, no matter what we do venting on the forums, your stance that is basically very arrogant saying that we are not on your level to get these endings, actually it fuels the fire.Then trying to say we are being closed minded when your company is digging at fans and our intelligence is basically low to what I respected with Bioware before.


4. Just because people dislike the endings does not mean they need to be called "whiny" or insulted because they disagree with your companies vision for the endings. Yes everyone gets a chance to explain their opinions but your company never acknowledges the people that say the endings don't work. All we ask is to take a good look and read what we liked about Mass Effect and disliked and add that to what you have already completed. If your company is honest about this being our story too then this request should make sense. 


5. I do hope that you are honestly saying to us that our voice has been heard and you have taken into account what we all want. Thanks for listening if you do read this. We all want Mass Effect to flourish. No one wants to own it, we just want to believe in it like we did before…if this makes any sense.

:innocent: Paragon

[wantedman dan]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Ok, stepping in here a second

1 - Duane is entitled to his opinion, just like you all are entitled to yours
2 - So is the writer of the article
3 - Duane is likely referencing that the person who wrote the article viewed the entire game of ME3 as an ending, which it is. This is what the team intended, which is the "gets it". Yes, you can discuss how successful we were or whatever, but this was the goal.
4 - Some people like the ending and they are welcome to express that here the same way that those who didn't like it express their opinions.
5 - Just because Duane does or doesn't feel a certain way doesn't mean anything about the Extended Cut.

What exactly is the rationale behind creating a 30-hour ending sequence?

[LinksOcarina]

wantedman dan wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Ok, stepping in here a second

1 - Duane is entitled to his opinion, just like you all are entitled to yours
2 - So is the writer of the article
3 - Duane is likely referencing that the person who wrote the article viewed the entire game of ME3 as an ending, which it is. This is what the team intended, which is the "gets it". Yes, you can discuss how successful we were or whatever, but this was the goal.
4 - Some people like the ending and they are welcome to express that here the same way that those who didn't like it express their opinions.
5 - Just because Duane does or doesn't feel a certain way doesn't mean anything about the Extended Cut.

What exactly is the rationale behind creating a 30-hour ending sequence?

Every trilogy is a 30 hour ending sequence.

Mass Effect 3 tied off as many loose ends as it could, finalized the storylines for squad-mates, friends, enemies, Shepard, and other characters. And had a large climax that including a mission to attempt to retake Earth. That entire sequence is the endgame I think people should refer to instead of the last ten minutes personally. 

But honestly, Mass Effect 3 did what every other trilogy did, it brought finality to the story. It brought a lot of closure, save for the last couple of minutes, which needs to be rectified. It brought the story to a close.

So the question is what didn't it do. And we know the answer to that already.

[Mann42]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Call of Duty is an exception to the rule though, because it is one of the few franchises that pretty much can deliver 5 million sold in a day. No one game series can do that in this economy anymore, no matter how hard they try sometimes.

In fact, most games are lucky if they break 1-2 million now a days, especially AAA titles like Mass Effect 3.Hell, Mass Effect 3 sold around 3 million units, putting it over the hump for Mass Effect 1 and bring all time sales (estimated) to around 13 million units sold without DLC or phone games or w/e.  (Mass Effect 2 I think had 6-7 million units sold, don't quote me though I might be wrong.) 

 The problem is CoD can't sustain itself anymore, because that bubble is bursting real soon...(i'm expecting the next CoD to not be a huge seller compared to Modern Warfare 3 personally) because Activisions strategy is to milk things for the short term without building a product base. Other, smaller time games like Prototype, the Cabela series, and 007 will never reach those numbers because they are not properly marketed or groomed to make it hit that light. Right now, Activision only has Skylanders and CoD to their name, along with Blizzard, whereas EA has a pilot program for smaller dev studios, a large corporate structure that is planning on increasing their core engineer staff, and is using their revenue not for income, but for investments for the long term.

So really, this attitude is kind of defeatist, but if that was the case EA wouldn't even try to make good games anymore, and I feel that is not true at all. Hell, no one will deny Mass Effect 3 is a competant, dare I say, amazing game, despite its myriad of issues. If EA didn't really care, they would have went with the FPS version of the game that was toyed with for the multiplayer.

You're preaching to the choir. But that attitude is real, and it's not defeatist, it's competitive. 

That's something most people really don't understand about executives. To get high enough to make the real decisions, you need to destroy people and make a metric load of money in the short term, over the long term. You need to treat business like you're playing CoD: boom, headshot! 

I'm sure all their business analysts and data analysts are coming up with different and unique strategies (Project 10 Dollar, Day 1 DLC), but 1 billion dollars a game is the new goal, and they're all fighting to reach it over and over again. Just like WoW became the new goal, leaving behind an army of free to play games. Once you're in charge of a major corporation, you are in it to WIN, in all capital letters. Anything less is bull****. 

Modifié par nexworks, 12 mai 2012 - 03:17 .

[clos]

I'm so glad for Mr. Webb that someone gets it. Maybe, next time, he can sell all future copies of his "art" to a NY art gallery where many others can gawk at it while twirling their scarfs around their fingers as they sip ginger ale and ponder how awesome ME3 was and how others just "didn't get it".

Meanwhile, for the rest of us who are actual gamers and not people who "get it" will move on to other things in life where we'll talk about ME3 for the failure it was and how "artistic integrity" ruined both a once great franchise and company. We'll wish them good luck with their future sales of their "art" to their new customers when too late they'll realize the "commercial" part counted for the most important part that allowed them to ply their trade. Money.

[LinksOcarina]

nexworks wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Call of Duty is an exception to the rule though, because it is one of the few franchises that pretty much can deliver 5 million sold in a day. No one game series can do that in this economy anymore, no matter how hard they try sometimes.

In fact, most games are lucky if they break 1-2 million now a days, especially AAA titles like Mass Effect 3.Hell, Mass Effect 3 sold around 3 million units, putting it over the hump for Mass Effect 1 and bring all time sales (estimated) to around 13 million units sold without DLC or phone games or w/e.  (Mass Effect 2 I think had 6-7 million units sold, don't quote me though I might be wrong.) 

 The problem is CoD can't sustain itself anymore, because that bubble is bursting real soon...(i'm expecting the next CoD to not be a huge seller compared to Modern Warfare 3 personally) because Activisions strategy is to milk things for the short term without building a product base. Other, smaller time games like Prototype, the Cabela series, and 007 will never reach those numbers because they are not properly marketed or groomed to make it hit that light. Right now, Activision only has Skylanders and CoD to their name, along with Blizzard, whereas EA has a pilot program for smaller dev studios, a large corporate structure that is planning on increasing their core engineer staff, and is using their revenue not for income, but for investments for the long term.

So really, this attitude is kind of defeatist, but if that was the case EA wouldn't even try to make good games anymore, and I feel that is not true at all. Hell, no one will deny Mass Effect 3 is a competant, dare I say, amazing game, despite its myriad of issues. If EA didn't really care, they would have went with the FPS version of the game that was toyed with for the multiplayer.

You're preaching to the choir. But that attitude is real, and it's not defeatist, it's competitive. 

That's something most people really don't understand about executives. To get high enough to make the real decision, you need to destroy people and make a metric load of money. You need to treat business like you're playing CoD: boom, headshot! 

I'm sure all their business analysists and data analysists are coming up with different and unique strategies (Project 10 Dollar, Day 1 DLC), but CoD is the new goal, and they're all fighting to reach it over and over again. Just like WoW became the new goal, leaving behind an army of free to play games. Once you're in charge of a major corporation, you are in it to WIN, in all capital letters. Anything less is bull****. 

You can't catch lightning in a bottle like that. EA should focus on making good games, and the for the most part they do that decently, but at the cost of a lot of flak and decisions that have been very questionable in the process.(project 10 dollar mostly, Day 1 DLC is honestly not a big thing because EA is not abusing it. Capcom is, and the backlash against them has been vocal by many, but non-existant in the press which pisses me off as a game journalist.) 

I think the problem is that EA is trying different methods to get to that goal, like DLC and content incentives and the like, but the consumer base is so against that when in reality, the microtransaction model is very profitable and works. So really, EA needs to continue to change their image or else they will  still be seen as the most hated corporation in America continually. 

[Icinix]

Well then, if the whole game of ME3 was an ending, it missed the mark there too.

It ignored some important things from the start and the middle (ME1 and ME2) and was marketed as a stand alone great place to jump in a new player.

ME3 is a dropped ball. It was meant to be the cream of the crop, the crown jewel in BioWares crown.

It could well end up being an ending of sorts though, but the Dragon Age IP has been having a crack at being the real ending too.....

[indyracing]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Ok, stepping in here a second

1 - Duane is entitled to his opinion, just like you all are entitled to yours
2 - So is the writer of the article
3 - Duane is likely referencing that the person who wrote the article viewed the entire game of ME3 as an ending, which it is. This is what the team intended, which is the "gets it". Yes, you can discuss how successful we were or whatever, but this was the goal.
4 - Some people like the ending and they are welcome to express that here the same way that those who didn't like it express their opinions.
5 - Just because Duane does or doesn't feel a certain way doesn't mean anything about the Extended Cut.

As for point #3, I would have to conclude that you guys were about as unsuccessful as you could be with achieving your goal.

For myself, I was expecting a third game in a three-game trilogy, not "an ending" to the 2 prior games.  On top of that, if you guys were aiming for "an ending" with ME 3, wouldn't that be a sure way to alienate potential new customers who didn't play 1 and 2?  I don't quite think the goal makes any sense.

I generally felt I did get a 3rd game, but the end to this game (and the entire trilogy) had the ending to another game in place of one that made sense.  This game had it's own goals (however pointless the final scene makes those goals), and left me with really no resolution to the story - in so much as as the credits rolled I didn't really felt like I got an end to anything (or at least to the story I had played to that point). 

But if the goal was to provide "an ending", the ending I took from the game was that everyone died, except for Joker, Liar and Javik, because based on what I had seen in ME up to that point, plus what was shown at the end of ME 3, that's what would have happened.

Sure, I guess you guys clarified things on Twitter, but I don't remember any other game, or story, I've ever encountered that required me to learn what happens at the end via some other totally unrelated source.  If you're going to clarify things via text, on the internet, wouldn't your VERY OWN WEBSITE be a proper place?  Call me old school, but barring putting the actual content in the game, at least on something you control completely would seem appropriate, yes?

The fact that "finally, someone gets it" took however many weeks should probably clue you guys into the idea that you did a very poor job at whatever you were aiming for (if you weren't already clued in).

Throw in the condescending attitude from all people Bioware since the ending was played, and there's a reason lots of people are upset with your company.  For myself, the list of people in the gaming industry who's projects I won't give a dime to just got longer, with Duane Webb joining Hudson, Gamble and Walters.  Condescension and lying are things I don't take kindly to - not sure about you.

The topic of the end (thematically as well as in generally accepted storytelling methods) has been discussed endlessly, but the complete lack of any sort of respect from Bioware means Bioware doesn't deserve any respect from me.  If you guys truly believed in the artistic integrity of your story, you wouldn't be giving free DLC away to clear things up.

I'd have much more respect for your company (and as a purchaser of every title from Bioware, and 95% of all DLC, you guys used to be the company I respected the most) if you guys had just come out and said "we like everything about this game and it's end, and if you don't like it, well f**k you".  At least with something like that I could respectfully disagree, but at this point, you guys keep spouting PR junk (and Gamble keeps saying untruths) and snide remarks without acknowledging that you guys totally messed.  You are trying to tow both lines of sometimes acting like you did everything well, but also acting like you have something to fix.

[Mann42]

LinksOcarina wrote...
You can't catch lightning in a bottle like that.

Once you're making 2 million plus dollars a year salary, with million dollar bonuses every quarter, and surrounded by yes men, you'll believe you can ****** gold. 

[LinksOcarina]

nexworks wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
You can't catch lightning in a bottle like that.

Once you're making 2 million plus dollars a year salary, with million dollar bonuses every quarter, and surrounded by yes men, you'll believe you can ****** gold. 

Assuming Riccitello is making 2 million plus a year with bonuses, and is surrounded by said yes men.

I mean, he is not Bobby Kotick like that .

[Icinix]

nexworks wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
You can't catch lightning in a bottle like that.

Once you're making 2 million plus dollars a year salary, with million dollar bonuses every quarter, and surrounded by yes men, you'll believe you can ****** gold. 

Its so true isn't it. What has happened with a lot of game companies over the years that have been merged into super groups is they've been relocated into a bubble.

They become detached out of touch.

I think this is as much a reason for the money being thrown at indie / kickstarter games of late because the AAA releases are no longer made by people in touch with the fans - only finance statistics.

[EnvyTB075]

On what level does this make any sense at all? Seriously, i want to go down there, must be an amazing place when you can that apologetic.

Seriously, i'm a reasonable guy, it takes a fair damned bit to get my temper going, but if you manage to get me going, you've done something really really really wrong.