2621 réponses à ce sujet

[Tleining]

Edolix wrote...

Okay Mods, since you didn't bother giving me a response in my own thread and locked it despite me saying that i've already tried posting here and was practically ignored by everyone, including you...

I'll post here again. I honestly don't expect a response, but perhaps you guys will surprise me.

I just want an answer as to why the European PSN store gets the Extended Cut a full week after everyone else. Please?

i don't have the answer to this exact question. But in the Past a dev commented that they don't have any influence over release dates of Games via PSN. You might want to use the regular PSN-Support to figure out the reason behind this.

[crimzontearz]

Geneaux486 wrote...

no, you don'tyou get a gasp of ****ing breath and cut to black

So because you didn't like it that means it didn't happen? and since Bioware is super tight lipped and evasive about it then guess what?They're avoiding spoilers?Also the starbrat is not just an expositional tool but nice try Question: What did the Catalyst do in the story? Answer: Explained ****. That's literally the only thing it did.

it makes no sense without context and seems more of an Easter egg than anything so it might as well not have happened since one can see it just with MP aid. They even reaffirmed that, zmgod, there are no fundamental changes to the ending because that is how they envisioned and finally starbrat provided the goddamn means to "stop" ( read give in to) the reapers...giving the player a set of three choices with no option of refusal or rebuttal, no, EDI was an exposition tool in ME2 and 3....so was avina, the starbrat is just poor writing

[Zacatus88]

Darth Death wrote...

xCaptainAmazing wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Have they fix the character creation import bug yet?

Fixed ages ago.

Good to know & thanks for the reply. 

If you try to import a default renegade shep that didn't get the surgery in ME 2 its just a guy with red eyes. I thought that was kind of funny lol.

[NM_Che56]

1.9GB?! Holy Toledo! Somebody had fun.

[Geneaux486]

crimzontearz wrote...
it makes no sense without context and seems more of an Easter egg than anything

What context is lacking exactly?  We see him take a breath, implying that he survived the Crucible's activation.  We have all the context we need. 

starbrat provided the goddamn means to "stop" ( read give in to) the reapers...giving the player a set of three choices with no option of refusal or rebuttal, no, EDI was an exposition tool in ME2 and 3....so was avina, the starbrat is just poor writing

The Catalyst did not design the Crucible, did not build it, did not hook it up to the Citadel, and did not fire it.  All of that was done by the opposing side, so how exactly did the Catalyst provide us with anything other than exposition?

EDIT: Also, EDI was not an expositional tool in ME2, she was a full-blown character, with her own arc and everything.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 22 juin 2012 - 10:50 .

[kyban]

I like how the Mods are locking every thread related to the EC, even if they ask specific questions.
I guess we'll just have to write here in the very generic 600 page thread. Yeah, topics aren't going to be lost and forgotten in here....

[Atakuma]

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

1.9 gigs for minutes worth of content, trolollolol

Yes, because having various content based on the decisions you made was totally not something people wanted.

[Zu Long]

Can't wait. I'm looking forward to this almost as much as the original release. I know some lost faith in Bioware, but I still believe in the company that gave us the other 99% of this great game. Let's do this.

[jedsithor]

Geneaux486 wrote...
The only thing they're not doing is changing the ending altogether.  They don't need to do that to save it, so why would they?

To save the ending they need to fix the Catalyst's flawed logic. That's the minimum. Not character closure or epilogues or more visual representations of your choices. It all starts with the logic flaw. If that's not fixed, everything else is pointless. The only way to fix that is to either get rid of the whole Machine vs Organic thing, which they were never going to do, or have Shepard point out that the logic is flawed, that he united the Geth and Quarian, that EDI has been free yet loyal and that the only machines who want to kill Organics are the Reapers. If that's pointed out, the story has to go in a completey different direction. That means an added ending. Shepard can live or die but as long as the logic flaw is intact, the whole thing is pointless.

That isn't being fixed, therefore the ending isn't being saved. The ending will continue to make no sense, no matter how they deal with Normandy or Harbinger or anything else.

[Freakaz0idx]

I'm extremely interested in how the 'all allies stranded in space left to die' thing gets elaborated, or maybe it won't be explained at all.

[Geneaux486]

jedsithor wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...
The only thing they're not doing is changing the ending altogether.  They don't need to do that to save it, so why would they?

To save the ending they need to fix the Catalyst's flawed logic.

Well they've got two options.  Either they can show us more about previous cycles to prove that the Catalyst's logic that synthetics will always try to wipe out organics was accurate (which would not have been contradicted until this very cycle, where the Catalyst admitted its solution would no longer work), or they can leave it as is so that we have a bad guy who's just using flawed logic.  The bad guy winds up being wrong in a lot of stories.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 22 juin 2012 - 10:52 .

[Vengilus]

1.9 gigabytes...

"I'm so glad I saved the Rachni and the Geth and destroyed the Collector base. It's too bad Jack and Jacob died."
"I'm so glad I saved the Rachni and the Geth and the Collector base. It's too bad Jack and Jacob died."
"I'm so glad I saved the Geth and destroyed Rachni and the Collector base. It's too bad Jack and Jacob died."
"I'm so glad I saved the Rachni and and destroyed the Geth and the Collector base. It's too bad Jack and Jacob died."
"I'm so glad I saved the Rachni and the Geth and destroyed the Collector base. It's too bad Jack and Grunt died."
"I'm so glad I saved the Rachni and the Geth and the Collector base. It's too bad Grunt and Jacob died."

...and so on and so on...

...x2 for both male and female Shepard... So many different outcomes!

[Iakus]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Will there be gameplay?

According to everything they've said, no. Still, 1.9 GB is pretty big. It's about the sum of all of New Vegas's DLC. We'll see.

They did say there will be new dialogue.Whether that counts as "gameplay" or not I dunno

[Tleining]

Geneaux486 wrote...

What contet is lacking exactly? We see him take a breath, implying that he survived the Crucible's activation. We have all the context we need.

Citadel blows up, Shepard survives it? How?
Is Shepard on the Citadel or on Earth? In either case, how can he/she still be alive?

The Catalyst did not design the Crucible, did not build it, did not hook it up to the Citadel, and did not fire it. All of that was done by the opposing side, so how exactly did the Catalyst provide us with anything other than exposition?

right, instead all the cycles worked together to build a device that required a being no organic had encountered before.
And the Catalyst brought Shepard to that final Place. Without the Catalyst Shepard would never have suceeded.

[Iakus]

Geneaux486 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
it makes no sense without context and seems more of an Easter egg than anything

What context is lacking exactly?  We see him take a breath, implying that he survived the Crucible's activation.  We have all the context we need. 

What context is lacking?

Wow, where to begin? 

[Baka-no-Neko]

Listening to Hudson interview I'm satisfied that the DLC will explain their endings. I ain't happy with the endings, but its what we've been given. I've yet to finish my 1st playthrough, waiting before the Asari temple. But I've seen the endings, and there -is going to get mobbed- potential for epic there. I just want stuff explained, I'm done whining about it anymore.

[Geneaux486]

Tleining wrote...
Citadel blows up, Shepard survives it? How?
Is Shepard on the Citadel or on Earth? In either case, how can he/she still be alive?

Kinetic barriers?  Wait 'till the EC comes out.

right, instead all the cycles worked together to build a device that required a being no organic had encountered before.

It required the Citadel to power it, something that, according to Vedetta, was adapted into the design long after the original plans were concieved.

And the Catalyst brought Shepard to that final Place. Without the Catalyst Shepard would never have suceeded.

Without the Catalyst to explain how to use it.  That last part is important.

[LazyTechGuy]

Jessica's Twitter just said the EC is roughly 10 mins long, depending on your play through.

That's it.

[crimzontearz]

Geneaux486 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...it makes no sense without context and seems more of an Easter egg than anything

What context is lacking exactly?  We see him take a breath, implying that he survived the Crucible's activation.  We have all the context we need. starbrat provided the goddamn means to "stop" ( read give in to) the reapers...giving the player a set of three choices with no option of refusal or rebuttal, no, EDI was an exposition tool in ME2 and 3....so was avina, the starbrat is just poor writingThe Catalyst did not design the Crucible, did not build it, did not hook it up to the Citadel, and did not fire it.  All of that was done by the opposing side, so how exactly did the Catalyst provide us with anything other than exposition?EDIT: Also, EDI was not an expositional tool in ME2, she was a full-blown character, with her own arc and everything.

god are you serious or just trolling?





first we have no idea how he survived or if he lives after that first breath secondly the freaking starbrat controls the reapers he could have just sent them the hell away, sure he did not build the crucible bit at that point you have to wonder just HOW you got to that point.....but hey, that is what Bioware wanted....lots of speculation for everyone right.





no...**** this

[Redbelle]

Geneaux486 wrote...

because they also pretty much confirmed no Shepard survival and no reunion and the starbrat.....are you dense? you do not see how introducing something like that in the last 5 minutes is bad writing? Or how forcing the death of the protagonist might ****** people off or kill replayability?

Catalyst is an expositional tool in the storytelling process. And we can already get an ending where Shepard lives. Maybe know stuff like that before you call other people dense?

Hold on, the Cat is many things but not an expositional tool. He has expositional dialogue to be sure, but once he starts interacting with Shepard he becomes a character. A character to which, in comparison to other characters in ME, we were initially unprepared to meet or haven't a clue as to what his purpose and motivations are. The Catalysts character all hinges off the time it takes to deliver his dialogue and straight away......... there's a problem.

The catalyst is foreshadowed in one way. Hackett say's they need 'it'. They need it, the thing to kickstart the reaction. Now arguably the Cat is an 'it' but as it is portrayed as the character of that small child it becomes a he. To remain an it would require being indistinct in appearence so as to avoid being described in gender terms. He, the Catalyst, then says that while he can give Shepard choices he cannot make them happen. So the Starchild is called a catalyst but cannot invoke nor speed up a reaction........... Perhaps I missed something from days in the lab. The Starchild does not seem to be able to function as a catalyst. Shepard, to me at least, seems to fit that description.

I came to conclusion awhile back that the Starchild is a raving egotist who hates being proven wrong, based on an attempt to study his character with so little to go on I admit. To call himself the Catalyst when Shepard is the one who initiate's the crucible reaction would, on the surface, be an attempt to claim sole credit for something he could not do by himself.

If the Cat was an exec with 100 ppl working under him he'd walk into that boardroom and reap in all the praise while sidelining the efforts of all who support him.

[jedsithor]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Well they've got two options.  Either they can show us more about previous cycles to prove that the Catalyst's logic that synthetics will always try to wipe out organics was accurate (which would not have been contradicted until this very cycle, where the Catalyst admitted its solution would no longer work), or they can leave it as is so that we have a bad guy who's just using flawed logic.  The bad guy winds up being wrong in a lot of stories.

Shepard can prove Catalyst wrong. That he doesn't point out the logic flaw is the worst thing of all. After 3 games of Shepard speaking his mind and pointing out hypocricies, when it matters most, when everything is on the line, he doesn't say a damn word about it. If the bad guy still wins after that, fine. As long as it makes sense.

[Mike 9987]

Casey: "We didn't do the extended cut to make everyone happy and make it perfect. We just saw an opertunity to expand on the things that we felt we could add value to those who might appreiciate it."

Even Casey says it will fail. Don't get your hopes up. It's clear only those who liked the original endings will like this. 

Modifié par Mike 9987, 22 juin 2012 - 11:03 .

[crimzontearz]

screw this....at this point I am just gonna read the player reviews and trade my ME3 to games too for some credit

[LazyTechGuy]

https://twitter.com/...297244826157057

[Geneaux486]

first we have no idea how he survived or if he lives after that first breath

 
And the EC could explain that.

secondly the freaking starbrat controls the reapers he could have just sent them the hell away,

Yet he didn't, instead he relied on an organic weapon that the player could have easily used to destroy them all.  Why?  Maybe the EC will explain it.
 

sure he did not build the crucible bit at that point you have to wonder just HOW you got to that point.....

Well it started with a seemingly normal shakedown mission at Eden Prime...

but hey, that is what Bioware wanted....lots of speculation for everyone right.

Ah yes, the magic looseleaf.  That paper was full of holes.

Hold on, the Cat is many things but not an expositional tool.

He shows up, fills in the last few gaps that previously established characters could not, and that's the last you see of him.  His role in the lore is far, far bigger than his purpose in the telling of the story, which as I've pointed out, is essentially just exposition.

Shepard can prove Catalyst wrong. That he doesn't point out the logic flaw is the worst thing of all. After 3 games of Shepard speaking his mind and pointing out hypocricies, when it matters most, when everything is on the line, he doesn't say a damn word about it. If the bad guy still wins after that, fine. As long as it makes sense.

 
Why does Shepard need to argue?  The Catalyst already conceded that his solution no longer works, and that Shepard's Crucible is the best way forward, and then control is turned over to you, the player, to pick from the functions the device your side built is capable of.  In short, there's no need to argue with the Catalyst because it's already admitted defeat.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 22 juin 2012 - 11:07 .