402 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

mauro2222 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

You misspelled "factual". It's okay, everyone makes a typo from time to time.

Ah... everytime putting words in people's mouth, everytime putting everyone in the same bag, everytime using stereotypes to define people. You're a nice person.

And to make it more perfect, you're never wrong.

If you don't want to be put in the same bag, do something to show you don't deserve to be put in that bag.

Acting like a snotty brat is NOT, however, the way to be taken out of the Snotty Brats bag.

You're using flying ideas to support your own delusions in order to have a justification to be agressive. The guy you quoted used an outside source of information to prove that BSN is no the only place that caught the "passive agressive" tone of the fourth ending. You transformed that into a paranoic conspiracy of people hating EA and IGN.

I've never said I didn't wanted to be put in the same bag, your opinion of my personality is something I don't care to hear or read, I said you put everyone in the same bag.

First off, there was no source. It was simple "news media". That is not, in any way, a valid source. So.. -1 point for you. There is no paranoic conspiracy of people hating EA and IGN, people here actually hate EA and IGN. So.. -1 more point for you.

We're sorry, but we do have some lovely parting gifts for you in the back...

[xeNNN]

StrawberryRainPop wrote...

Etereoooo wrote...

1.9 GB....where the **** did they put them?

groundwork for future DLC. Not even kidding.

i havent even seen it yet and 1.9 GB sounds stupidly large for cutscene's and extended dialog lol 

i mean how big is the original game.... 10GB?    so................ it takes 1.9 GB's for a bunch of scene's and other things .... then that would mean the game would be something stupid like 50GB or even 100GB rofl... 

so yeah you are correct i actually think they sneaked locked content in there, we'll see though, no doubt ton's of people are already checking the game files now.. lol

[UrdnotGrunty2]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wryterra wrote...

I am arguing that if they're going to give us the reject choice they do it better than this, in a way that doesn't strike me personally as insultingly dismissive. 

Just to be clear, would you have preferred there to be no refuse option at all, to what was provided?


It IS shorter, but is it really dismissive?  If it was just to be a shot at the fanbase, wouldn't it have been better to just say "oh well you lose" and wrap it up there?

Instead we get a video showing Liara talking about our past experiences and even get a unique sequence with a Stargazer where Shepard's legacy lives on based on what the future cycle learned from all of his hard work.

In fact, even with the refuse ending, the galaxy is still ultimately able to break free of the Reapers and largely holds Shepard responsible for being able to do so.

Stop the PR you were told to give and realize it's an insult because there is no way to get your 'happy ending' unless you take the choices bioware originally gave us which insulted us and are still badly written endings fille with plotholes just better than the ones we had before because they are the same endings.  And the one ending that makes sense and isn't thematically revolting at the very least there is no possible way for Shepard to win his happy ending so to speak, and the way it's written it makes it sound as if the writers are angry at the fans for criticizing their piece of crap work on the endings because thats what it is especially compared to the rest of the story.

I personally think rejection provides the most closure, and also feel it is the most thematically correct and keep Shepard in character, however I also believe it is the ending where Bioware holds up their middle finger at us telling us to screw off. 

[mauro2222]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

First off, there was no source. It was simple "news media". That is not, in any way, a valid source. So.. -1 point for you. There is no paranoic conspiracy of people hating EA and IGN, people here actually hate EA and IGN. So.. -1 more point for you.

We're sorry, but we do have some lovely parting gifts for you in the back...

Really? are you playing with me or something?

News media or not, it's still a source of information, if you consider it valid or not, it wasn't the point.
I've never said that there is a conspiracy, I said you transformed his comment and placed him in the "We hate EA and IGN" group.

Modifié par mauro2222, 27 juin 2012 - 09:09 .

[jakenou]

Shepard Wins wrote...

No, it's not well said. The refuse ending means nothing when the next cycle just uses the Crucible to win. What's the point of rejecting anything just to use it in the future? And while doing that, dooming the current cycle in the first place? This refuse ending is unnecessary, it would have been great if there was a way to win conventionally. But right now it's kinda pointless and no one should be surprised people find it offensive because it does come across as a big "you don't accept our artistic integrity? YOU LOSE!" statement. Maybe if it was there in the first place, it wouldn't be this way, but after all the insulting PR after the original ending controversy and BW's statements about "artistic integrity" and some such it comes across as a FU.

I relate to this statement a lot. I, and I think many others, felt like a big fat silent but loud YOU LOSE with a middle finger thrown in there after experiencing the refuse ending. It's totally what it felt like, even though I was laughing at how blatant it seemed (while at the same time saying WTF to myself yet again but in a whole new way at another ending that is convoluted and filled with it's own new holes). The lead in for the refuse ending felt pretty awesome, but it was a pretty awesome nosedive for the whole second half of it.

And the whole deal with not using the Crucible only so it can be used to the same effect in the next cycle is kind of mind numbing. After Shep was being so... Shep in the whole beginning of the refuse scenario, she ends up rolling over on his/her back just so the next cycle can deal with instead? Complete opposite to the defiant true to his/herself Shep just moments before. It is however very vague (again!) as to whether the future will repeat the past. One of the main reasons I chose the refuse ending is bc I felt like it should be what stops the cycle from recurring - that the Crucible isn't a solution, and that future generations should prepare themselves well in advance and in a whole new way.

[DennyHoffmann]

People are paranoic, there is no insult or anything close to it on the reject end.

Jesus Christ, now everything is a reason to start a conspiracy about this and that...

[N172]

It is likely that the extended cut included some of the stuff that was already in the game, replacing an existing file with an updated one is easier and by far more failsafe than putting new stuff into already existing files via installer.

Since downloadsize does not matter nearly as much as it did in the past for most people it is logical.

Modifié par N172, 27 juin 2012 - 09:12 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

mauro2222 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

First off, there was no source. It was simple "news media". That is not, in any way, a valid source. So.. -1 point for you. There is no paranoic conspiracy of people hating EA and IGN, people here actually hate EA and IGN. So.. -1 more point for you.

We're sorry, but we do have some lovely parting gifts for you in the back...

Really? are you playing with me or something?

News media or not, it's still a source of information, if you consider it valid or not, it wasn't the point.
I've never said that there is a conspiracy, I said you transformed his comment and placed him in the "We hate EA and IGN" group.

Aliens told me it's not BioWare insulting you.

Do you see how vague that is? A source is a SOURCE. It is the name of a website, or a magazine, or a link, or SOMETHING that can be checked and verified. "News media" is, in absolutely NO WAY, a "source".

If you cannot understand that BASIC FACT, then there is literally no point to even talking to you now or in the future.

[flanny]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

flanny wrote...



Yes. That's the problem, the fans asked for another ending (one that would make sense) and Bioware specifically made it to look bad and insult the fans who questioned their ending 

They made it look bad because going it alone and fighting the Reapers conventionally is utter suicide. There is no possible way you can win.

If rationality is "insulting" to you, then, frankly, you have bigger problems.

Why? How many times has the impossible happened in the series? Though that is besides the point, the point is the reject ending could have been great and had the potential to fix many of the problems in the original ending.

Instead Bioware made it bad, they show no final battle battle, no choices reflected, no EMS reflected, no going out in a blaze of glory, just a final insult from the next cycle explaining what you should have done.

also i'm not insulted, i'm just sure the ending was bioware's attempt to 'get back' at fans who complained about their ending. which is disappointing

[mrcanada]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

Vaktathi wrote...

Shallyah wrote...

If you feel insulted by the Reject ending you really need to grow up.

One will notice that it's not just people here that feel that way, several news articles have pointed out that it appears to be a swipe at the playerbase.

And McDonalds has over two billion served. Fox News says Obama is a Socialist. What in the bleeding hells is your point?

The point is it just isn't the fans saying it, what's your point?  

Uh huh. And if they had said the opposite, you'd be screaming about how the "news media" is terrible and can be bought, and EA is the devil.

Just look at that Forbes thread from yesterday. Several people who were still butthurt were praising Forbes for agreeing with them while saying "Ha ha, let's see what that trash IGN has to say NOW!"

It's the mentality of people like you that I find fascinating. "If you agree with me, you're beyond reproach. If you disagree with me, you're a paid shill and THE DEVIL!"

The assumptions you make off of nothing astound me.  Keep generalizing.

[Mobius-Silent]

mrcanada wrote...

spacefiddle wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

mrcanada wrote...
Subtitles, use them in game.

Your grasping at straws, you have been this entire time. Your looking for something that is not there. It is merely based on your own state of mind making assumptions without facts about the intentions of another group. Nothing said will convince you otherwise because your so close minded and refuse to accept the fact they told you they did not.

Uh.  You don't know what subtitles are, do you? 

Um, you know the subtitles say:

Child: So be it
Child: The cycle continues

So regardless of the voice change its all the "child", which is the Catalyst not Harbinger

also there are no subtitles for the mumbled noise Harbinger makes when he fires at you

So, no,it's not Harbinger in the same way the Rannoch reaper, Control-Shep, and Sovereign aren't Harbinger

[MuKen]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Well then.  At the same time I think people just see what they want to see.  Frankly your post was rude and pretentious, magnified by the fact that you demonstrated you actually didn't actually understand what I was asking and tried to be witty about it with "False <point>" to open your statements.  If you wish to be dismissive of me trying to talk with the fans (as a fan myself, since most posters here are quite understanding of the fact that I don't work on the Mass Effect team), you're free to not respond to my posts.

If you feel that this was an attempt by the Mass Effect team to flip you the bird, I do not feel there is anything I can say to you to convince you otherwise.

I cannot claim to speak for the TC's reasoning, but I can tell you why I felt this was an intentional insult, and maybe you can clear up what you were thinking with regards to me concerns.

Firstly, this ending is objectively less than the others.  Cinematic asset for cinematic asset, it has less work put into it.  This isn't an opinion, it's a measurable fact.  Secondly, the other three have a structured theme going on.  There's a cinematic sequence immediately following your choice, following a narrated slideshow that shows you the lives of your team.  This one ending is the only one that departs from that.

These add up to one thing: conscious decision.  You chose to make this one shorter.  You chose not to give us closure, despite the fact that "closure" was obviously on your minds throughout the creation of this extended cut.  What happened to my team?  Did they all die there?  Did they escape the battle and fight for very long natural lives until the reapers hunted them down?  The reapers didn't instantly blow up the galaxy, Javik said it takes generations.  How did that pan out?  Did anybody try to make stasis pods, did anyone make it into the next cycle like Javik did?

This ending needed a narrated epilogue MORE than the others, because it introduced a new complex story.  And you didn't give it to us, despite knowing everybody wants closure for their teammates.  How can we not interpret this as a conscious choice to punish us for making this choice?

Furthermore, you don't count this one as game completion on the achievements.  You can earn the insanity completion achievement for any other ending, but not this one.  You are telling us by choosing this, we failed to complete the game.  How much clearer can it get?

[mauro2222]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

First off, there was no source. It was simple "news media". That is not, in any way, a valid source. So.. -1 point for you. There is no paranoic conspiracy of people hating EA and IGN, people here actually hate EA and IGN. So.. -1 more point for you.

We're sorry, but we do have some lovely parting gifts for you in the back...

Really? are you playing with me or something?

News media or not, it's still a source of information, if you consider it valid or not, it wasn't the point.
I've never said that there is a conspiracy, I said you transformed his comment and placed him in the "We hate EA and IGN" group.

Aliens told me it's not BioWare insulting you.

Do you see how vague that is? A source is a SOURCE. It is the name of a website, or a magazine, or a link, or SOMETHING that can be checked and verified. "News media" is, in absolutely NO WAY, a "source".

If you cannot understand that BASIC FACT, then there is literally no point to even talking to you now or in the future.

He said news articles... that's a source of information. If he didn't provide links is not my problem, that's is not what I'm discussing here. A source of information is anything that might inform a person about something or provide knowledge to somebody. And it falls into that definition.

[httinks2006]

mrcanada wrote...

MattFini wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They gave you what wanted but also stuck with the game plot they created which stated over and over you was not going to win by conventional means.

Means nothing.  We were also told we wouldn't be coming back from that crazy suicide mission. 

Again, the game did not state that you weren't going to win by conventional means. If ME3 showed anything, it showed that the Reapers were very, very beatable.  Even in the final conflict, there is little urgency in Hackett's voice and the fleet suffers little from what is shown.  No stage of the battle was hindered by what the Reapers did and this is even reinforced further with the new scenes of Harbringer.  HE WATCHES THE NORMANDY ESCAPE AND DOES NOTHING.  LOOKS AT SHEPARD SAYS JOIN US, BLASTS HIM AND THEN LETS HIM WALTZ UP THE ONLY THING THAT IS ABLE TO DEFEAT THE REAPERS.  It is nonsense and ME3 weakened the Reapers significantly.

also keep in mind everyone loves to go by ingame information did you guys see the odds your ems gave you I was even odds before going into the Cerebus Base I know people who played multiplayer were way higher then me so that argument of not being able to win conventionally is rubbish .
Javik in our cycle we nver untited the races.

[mrcanada]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

I'm not grasping at straws.  The words are there and if you are saying they aren't, you are dillisional.

I will state it again below... It refers to your thread, your percieved insult. Not whether there was subtitles.

Your looking for something that is not there (insult). It is merely based on your own state of mind making assumptions without facts about the intentions of another group. Nothing said will convince you otherwise because your so close minded and refuse to accept the fact they told you they did not.

And you are ignoring obvious slights in favor of what you perceive it to be.  It works both ways.

[Hawk227]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

Umm, nowhere it was said they used a crucible. Headcanon?
And why would they use it if it didn't work?
Lets not speculate ok?

BTW, I would like to point out again, that if cycle completed "as usual", Asari should be harvested 100%. How come you see Asari as Stargazer?

The stargazer says that didn't have to fight a war (cuz they had a superweapon), more importanly Mike Gamble confirmed it on twitter (and Jessica Merizan on the BSN...Somwhere).

Stargazer says about that they didn't have to fight a war, but nothing about superweapon.
And, twitter is not canon. Only ingame stuff is canon. I've lost count of times that they said something on twitter that was a blatant contradiction to what actually later was revealed ingame. Especially persons you've mentioned.

The superweapon was the implication. It was the subtext. How else do they defeat the all-mighty Reapers?

As for the rest, I agree Jess Merizan is unreliable, but Gamble is a head developer and his tweets reflect authorial intent. My issue isn't with the Text (the canon as you call it). I'm content with the text. What upsets me is the metatext, it is the intent behind the text. Everything I've seen (and Developer Tweets count) leads me to believe that Refuse was supposed to be a troll to their detractors. It was intended as a slap in the face. For reasons that I don't really feel like expanding on here, I still liked Refuse. I thought it was poetic, and thematically and narratively appropriate (in as much as anything with the Catalyst could be). I just don't think that was what they wanted me to feel.

[mrcanada]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

You misspelled "factual". It's okay, everyone makes a typo from time to time.

Ah... everytime putting words in people's mouth, everytime putting everyone in the same bag, everytime using stereotypes to define people. You're a nice person.

And to make it more perfect, you're never wrong.

If you don't want to be put in the same bag, do something to show you don't deserve to be put in that bag.

Acting like a snotty brat is NOT, however, the way to be taken out of the Snotty Brats bag.

You're acting like an idiot man and come off as incredibly ignorant.  Your generalizations are equally laughable as is your iference that anyone questioning anything is a whiner.  There are whiners in this issue, I'm not one of them.

[Dragoonlordz]

mrcanada wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

mrcanada wrote...

I'm not grasping at straws.  The words are there and if you are saying they aren't, you are dillisional.

I will state it again below... It refers to your thread, your percieved insult. Not whether there was subtitles.

Your looking for something that is not there (insult). It is merely based on your own state of mind making assumptions without facts about the intentions of another group. Nothing said will convince you otherwise because your so close minded and refuse to accept the fact they told you they did not.

And you are ignoring obvious slights in favor of what you perceive it to be.  It works both ways.

If they were so obvious then everyone who disliked the ending and asked to reject it's logic would agree with you, simple pure fact.. they do not. There is no obvious slights if it is not obvious as you claim it to be. Maybe you do not know what obvious means.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 juin 2012 - 09:25 .

[gusdorf]

Anyone else "reject your choice" by shooting the catalyst/kid?

[Joroelcapo]

i never will choose the refusal option, but i have seen it. Its logical but i think it will be better if we saw shepard trying to do something. Seeing the characters die.

[BD Manchild]

I would have got on better with the Reject ending if your EMS had actually had an impact on the outcome, even if it was just varying degrees of loss (though I still don't think a conventional victory was entirely impossible, going by the wording of your resources chart). Hell, I would even have been able to accept a bittersweet ending if the next cycle had been able to beat the Reapers using Liara's information.

However, what I will NOT accept is the idea that the next cycle used the Crucible to beat the Reapers. That is a massive FU as it renders Shepard's stance in favour of free will as being entirely bloody pointless. You can only win by the Catalyst's terms. No matter what you do, the Reapers win, whether it be in this cycle or the next.

It's also small wonder that people are taking this as a personal insult from Bioware themselves. If it had been there since the beginning I doubt people would have such a problem with it; the fact that it only comes into play in the EC, however, after all the complaints were taken on board, and taking into account the way it's presented, just makes it come across as rushed at best and downright spiteful at worst.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 27 juin 2012 - 09:33 .

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Joroelcapo wrote...

i never will choose the refusal option, but i have seen it. Its logical but i think it will be better if we saw shepard trying to do something. Seeing the characters die.

I think that exactly that's why they decided not to show more.
- If they will show them die, this will upset lot of people.
- If they will show them not die (and, for example, going into stasis and surviving to next cycle), this also will upset a lot of other people.
Since you can't please everybody and this ending is most controversial, they've decided to leave it most open-ended, only confirming that the basic premise didn't change (no conventional victory, etc.)

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 27 juin 2012 - 09:30 .

[flanny]

UrdnotGrunty2 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wryterra wrote...

I am arguing that if they're going to give us the reject choice they do it better than this, in a way that doesn't strike me personally as insultingly dismissive. 

Just to be clear, would you have preferred there to be no refuse option at all, to what was provided?


It IS shorter, but is it really dismissive?  If it was just to be a shot at the fanbase, wouldn't it have been better to just say "oh well you lose" and wrap it up there?

Instead we get a video showing Liara talking about our past experiences and even get a unique sequence with a Stargazer where Shepard's legacy lives on based on what the future cycle learned from all of his hard work.

In fact, even with the refuse ending, the galaxy is still ultimately able to break free of the Reapers and largely holds Shepard responsible for being able to do so.

Stop the PR you were told to give and realize it's an insult because there is no way to get your 'happy ending' unless you take the choices bioware originally gave us which insulted us and are still badly written endings fille with plotholes just better than the ones we had before because they are the same endings.  And the one ending that makes sense and isn't thematically revolting at the very least there is no possible way for Shepard to win his happy ending so to speak, and the way it's written it makes it sound as if the writers are angry at the fans for criticizing their piece of crap work on the endings because thats what it is especially compared to the rest of the story.

I personally think rejection provides the most closure, and also feel it is the most thematically correct and keep Shepard in character, however I also believe it is the ending where Bioware holds up their middle finger at us telling us to screw off. 

well put

[Alushadow]

and synthesis isnt? really? or control?
by playing this game regardless of all of your actions
most of the time you are an anti "control them" or "change them" type
like when being presented with the morality choice of "rewriting the geth" in ME2
by control you brain wash the reapers to force them to do your bidding
and by synthesis you "change" everyone in the galaxy against there will
making them all "be the same" which kinda kills the special thing the galaxy holds as a mixture of races
eventually if you dont kill it you didnt do what you set to do to begin with so its kinda stupied
and if you add the fact that no matter of your choice there is that geezer with the little kid talking bout the starts
but if you see the ending in all 3 sept shooting the kid or refusing everyone pretty much survives
and they rebuild how can the "data" be "lost" since they didnt really lose anything the geezer talk to the kid about in the future you can bla bla in the stars like they are some human monkeys with our current tech and the most far place he is gonna get to is the moon

[withneelandi]

I don't think its an insult.

I was very much in the "I reject these choices camp" and was as critical of the games original ending as anyone, when I loaded up the EC I went straight to reject and when I heard "so be it" I had a wry smile and realised that there was a bit of a meta gaming joke going on.

Its not insulting, its a bit cheeky and also quite witty, don't be so po faced,

I think if you want to look at the reject ending on a meta level its fair play for the writers to say "what you STILL don't like the end of the game we made and you won't play by the rules we set, so be it, you loose".

Thats how games work, and yes its a bit cheeky, but also a bit funny.