288 réponses à ce sujet

[savionen]

saracen16 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

Not gonna happen, unless you want to change the entire story. Having a different ending for refusal makes for HORRIBLE STORYTELLING. It deviates from the crux of ME3: the Crucible is the ONLY WAY TO STOP THE REAPERS. The evidence is there in the game.

You talk about horrible storytelling then cite a massive Deus Ex Machine as the only way to conclude a storyline as a good thing?  Go learn what actual good storytelling is and then come back.

I'm a writer. The Crucible is a MacGuffin, not a DXM. The Catalyst is also not a DXM because he is introduced. I think it's you who needs to learn what good storytelling is and not parrot every single blurb spat out by the "I hate the starbrat" fan club.

The Catalyst isn't introduced until the end of the game. It's unclear what the Crucible actually does until the end of the game, even though it's introduced at the beginning.

When I played Priority Earth I didn't even think it was the end of the game, I figured there were a few more hours left. I didn't realize it was really the end until the Catalyst was solving all of my problems for me.

[wantedman dan]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Crucible is a wierd hybrid that I can only describe as a Deus Ex MacGuffinus. It carries traits from both to make something far worse than either. 

Mass Effect 3 is, quite frankly, a literary disaster.

[iAFKinMassEffect3]

wantedman dan wrote...

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

No, the Crucible was not a Deus Ex Machina.

It was a MacGuffin, which is still poor storytelling.

People use to argue that the starchild was the MacGuffin and the Crucible was the Deus Ex Machina.
And now you come along and tell everyone they're wrong.

Way to cite vague and indefinite sources to prove some nonsensical point you're making.

That's like saying, "Well, they say that you're douchebag." I'd be happy to believe them, but who is the "they" of which I speak?

I thought that's what we were doing.
Next time look up the definitions before you make an idiot of yourself.

[wantedman dan]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Festilence wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

What would that alteration to Rejection be?

Being able to beat the Reapers with super-high EMS, if I assume correctly. 

Which is far more narratively coherent than any of the three options presented. 

I'd be happy to just have Shepard send out a rallying cry, determinate upon EMS. Sure, they might not be able to win, but they'd put up one hell of a fight.

[felipejiraya]

Yes, they deserve credit because other companies in the same situation would simply tell us to go to hell.

But the endings are still flawed and for this they don't deserve any credit.

[wantedman dan]

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

I thought that's what we were doing.
Next time look up the definitions before you make an idiot of yourself.

Or next time, actually argue something before you resort to being such a child.

[The Night Mammoth]

wantedman dan wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Crucible is a wierd hybrid that I can only describe as a Deus Ex MacGuffinus. It carries traits from both to make something far worse than either. 

Mass Effect 3 is, quite frankly, a literary disaster.

I used to sympathise that a 30 hour RPG like Mass Effect, being so much longer than a movie or TV show, is more difficult to keep coherent. 

But then I remembered that books exist, and book series's like A Song of Ice and Fire.

[Dresden867]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Crucible is a wierd hybrid that I can only describe as a Deus Ex MacGuffinus. It carries traits from both to make something far worse than either. 

Mass Effect 3 is, quite frankly, a literary disaster.

I used to sympathise that a 30 hour RPG like Mass Effect, being so much longer than a movie or TV show, is more difficult to keep coherent. 

But then I remembered that books exist, and book series's like A Song of Ice and Fire.

For a good laugh, go find the site where they talk about the sheer number of small places where GRRM appears to have contradicted himself in that series. /grin

My personal favorite is "Tyrion is an acrobat in book 1, and never again shows that off until suddenly he remembers he has those abilities in book 5."

[Rahmiel]

This is a tough thread. On one hand, I think it was poor of BW to go back and expand on the endings (without actually adding new content such as the perspective of someone from outside the citadel, etc.) because it sets a dangerous precedent with fans thinking they own the property/ip. I mean, if you don't like the ending to call of duty, will there be a petition? It worked for ME3!

On the other hand, I greatly appreciate the expanded explanations of the consequences for the choices. While I dislike the endings because I couldn't get what I wanted (shepard lives, reapers defeated for good, synthetics are my bros, lots of kids with my LI [assuming non-homosexual relationship]) I do appreciate the value placed on the choice at the end. I really like the play hamlet. I wish he could live. And at times, I think he will because he just seems to be *that* much smarter and clever than everyone else. But still, he dies. Does it take away from the play? No. I feel the same way here.

So does BW deserve credit for the EC? Not sure. Do they listen to fans? Obviously. Clearly they do not listen to me because I wouldn't have done anything differently, just would have gone straight into dlc and the next game in the universe. But I'm not offended by that either.

[The Night Mammoth]

wantedman dan wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Festilence wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

What would that alteration to Rejection be?

Being able to beat the Reapers with super-high EMS, if I assume correctly. 

Which is far more narratively coherent than any of the three options presented. 

I'd be happy to just have Shepard send out a rallying cry, determinate upon EMS. Sure, they might not be able to win, but they'd put up one hell of a fight.

Same. 

I likely wouldn't choose Refuse as my definitive ending of choice, but I'd still prefer it better than Control or Synthesis. 

Shepard certainly doesn't act like the figurehead they'd just spent the last game promoting her as. 

[The Night Mammoth]

Dresden867 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Crucible is a wierd hybrid that I can only describe as a Deus Ex MacGuffinus. It carries traits from both to make something far worse than either. 

Mass Effect 3 is, quite frankly, a literary disaster.

I used to sympathise that a 30 hour RPG like Mass Effect, being so much longer than a movie or TV show, is more difficult to keep coherent. 

But then I remembered that books exist, and book series's like A Song of Ice and Fire.

For a good laugh, go find the site where they talk about the sheer number of small places where GRRM appears to have contradicted himself in that series. /grin

My personal favorite is "Tyrion is an acrobat in book 1, and never again shows that off until suddenly he remembers he has those abilities in book 5."

Well sure, small ones here and there. 

Anything that massively breaks the series? 

Not from my experience. 

[Dresden867]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Well sure, small ones here and there. 

Anything that massively breaks the series? 

Not from my experience. 

Not until the TV show, anyhow, that I remember, but I'd have to go digging.  Though personally, I still feel like Melisandre is a series-breaking element in that series, but that's a whole 'nother topic for a different forum.

[Jenonax]

saracen16 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

Not gonna happen, unless you want to change the entire story. Having a different ending for refusal makes for HORRIBLE STORYTELLING. It deviates from the crux of ME3: the Crucible is the ONLY WAY TO STOP THE REAPERS. The evidence is there in the game.

You talk about horrible storytelling then cite a massive Deus Ex Machine as the only way to conclude a storyline as a good thing?  Go learn what actual good storytelling is and then come back.

I'm a writer. The Crucible is a MacGuffin, not a DXM. The Catalyst is also not a DXM because he is introduced. I think it's you who needs to learn what good storytelling is and not parrot every single blurb spat out by the "I hate the starbrat" fan club.

So am I.

The Crucible shows up very late in the overall narrative of the trilogy with no foreshadowing or prior knowledge to solve the problem of the Reaper threat.  It most certainly is a DEM. 

I certainly don't parrot anything, thank you, I was perfectly able to come up with this opinion on my own.  I have very well known problems with the Crucible and think its the greatest flaw with ME3 rather than the Catalyst who could have been an interesting concept if his own status as a Rogue AI had been used in a better way. The Crucible adds nothing and is the crux of a writer who couldn't think up a way of giving us a satisfying and natural conclusion to his story.

[Voutsis1982]

It's true that Bioware should get credit for doing something about the ending.

They'd have gotten less if they did nothing.

They'd have gotten more if the ending was now worthy of the series and up to the standards set by the story that proceeded it.

[savionen]

Memmahkth wrote...

This is a tough thread. On one hand, I think it was poor of BW to go back and expand on the endings (without actually adding new content such as the perspective of someone from outside the citadel, etc.) because it sets a dangerous precedent with fans thinking they own the property/ip. I mean, if you don't like the ending to call of duty, will there be a petition? It worked for ME3!

On the other hand, I greatly appreciate the expanded explanations of the consequences for the choices. While I dislike the endings because I couldn't get what I wanted (shepard lives, reapers defeated for good, synthetics are my bros, lots of kids with my LI [assuming non-homosexual relationship]) I do appreciate the value placed on the choice at the end. I really like the play hamlet. I wish he could live. And at times, I think he will because he just seems to be *that* much smarter and clever than everyone else. But still, he dies. Does it take away from the play? No. I feel the same way here.

So does BW deserve credit for the EC? Not sure. Do they listen to fans? Obviously. Clearly they do not listen to me because I wouldn't have done anything differently, just would have gone straight into dlc and the next game in the universe. But I'm not offended by that either.

This isn't the first video game to be changed after fans said something. Not even close.

[wantedman dan]

The Night Mammoth wrote... 

Shepard certainly doesn't act like the figurehead they'd just spent the last game promoting her as. 

This is my biggest complaint.

[savionen]

Jenonax wrote...


So am I.

The Crucible shows up very late in the overall narrative of the trilogy with no foreshadowing or prior knowledge to solve the problem of the Reaper threat.  It most certainly is a DEM. 

I certainly don't parrot anything, thank you, I was perfectly able to come up with this opinion on my own.  I have very well known problems with the Crucible and think its the greatest flaw with ME3 rather than the Catalyst who could have been an interesting concept if his own status as a Rogue AI had been used in a better way. The Crucible adds nothing and is the crux of a writer who couldn't think up a way of giving us a satisfying and natural conclusion to his story.

I agree. If they had the Catalyst as a Rogue AI, and introduced him at the beginning, it could have been rather interesting. There would have been soooo much they could have done with it. Try to convince the AI to do something or another at the end, etc. Very obviously they started with the Crucible and rewrote the story about half-way through very sad.

Modifié par savionen, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:42 .

[Plutar]

There's a part in Erik Kain's article where he says, "I’ve been tough on BioWare. Maybe even a bit unfair at times, in retrospect."

If Erik thinks he's been unfair at times, I can't imagine what that classifies some of the more vocal commenters here as...

Modifié par Plutar, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:48 .

[Dan Dark]

Eh... they deserve some credit. Not much, and not praise... just credit for finally doing the right thing, and what they should have done in the first place. That said, I still reserve my right to be disappointed and occasionally bitter - for how much time they had to work on this, there is so much more they could have done.

[Silent Rage]

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

All they deserve is a fat one.

[Jenonax]

savionen wrote...


I agree. If they had the Catalyst as a Rogue AI, and introduced him at the beginning, it could have been rather interesting. There would have been soooo much they could have done with it. Try to convince the AI to do something or another at the end, etc. Very obviously they started with the Crucible and rewrote the story about half-way through very sad.

The Catalyst is a lot more interesting after the EC.  If not for that line about making his creators into the first Reaper.  He's a rogue AI living out a self fulfilling prophecy and that is actually very interesting if it was used correctly.  As in motivation to blow the Reapers to kingdom come, not to listen to his bloody solutions!

[morph4037]

Honestly, they do deserve credit for trying to salvage things. However what they did just feels like it falls short of what it could have been. Especially when taking into consideration countless hours of building and developing Shepard and your team just to have it end abruptly and very anticlimactically.

Just to digress a bit, for me, even if they should continue the ME setting/world/whatever else, I'm done. ME2 characters felt like they didn't really mean squat in ME3, numerous plot holes, and the whole "artistic integrity" bs just have me turned off from having anything to do with future EAware games.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

Finally someone else who isn't star struck by this EC BS.

[SamFlagg]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Nope.
I don't feel I was listened to, I don't feel my concerns were addressed. I feel directly insulted.

Can't please everyone? A minor alteration to rejection, and they would've pleased me and a lot of others, while pleasing the rest with their endings. This notion is false, and BioWare deserve no credit.

Finally someone else who isn't star struck by this EC BS.

To be fair, there were a fair amount of us who did have many of their issues resolved, at a certain point enough issues got resolved for some that months ago were major issues that are now downgraded to "nitpicks"

The Golden Ending crowd wasn't ever going to get what they truly wanted, and anyone who expected the catalyst to disapeer completely wasn't either.  But the concerns with the things happening in the final part of the game that were outside of those two things were largely addressed.

Presuming that one of the near future DLCs is actually Leviathan, then maybe there comes an oppertunity to introduce more pieces pointing to the existance of the catalyst earlier in the game.

[Anthropophobic]

 I keep running into these sorts of articles and forum posts; they're everywhere, and they're written almost as if to cheer us up over the disappointing ending ordeal and to get us to warm up to the developers again.

They make me wonder:  Why does Bioware suddenly deserve our love again for fixing a crappy, rushed ending? (If you can even call the Extended Cut "fixed.") More importantly, why does anyone in the fanbase care? No, I'm not going to buy the next Bioware game, whatever it is; I'm still angry. Stop trying to put a positive spin on this disaster.