288 réponses à ce sujet

[FS3D]

shurikenmanta wrote...

FS3D wrote...
This isn't some wonderful instance of BioWare doing what we wanted and we're just ****ing. They did exactly what some most of us DIDN'T want.

FTFY.

Sory, I didn't ask you to fix anything. I know what I meant.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

They get credit for trying and fixing a few things, but It was still disappointing.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

felipejiraya wrote...

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.

Betheseda fixed FO3 endings and the backslash for the FO3 endings weren't even nearly as bad as Mass Effect, and they did a better job at it too.

[Memnon]

Let's be honest - if whatever metrics Bioware had said that the fanbase was happy with ME3, then they would not have spent any time or resources building free DLC for no reason other than to expound on the endings. This was not some altruistic artistic act - it was to quell a fire that they did not expect.

Seriously - for those who were involved with the discussions of the disaster that was Ilum in SWTOR, we're pretty familiar with this kind of spin.

[Memnon]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

felipejiraya wrote...

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.

Betheseda fixed FO3 endings and the backslash for the FO3 endings weren't even nearly as bad as Mass Effect, and they did a better job at it too.

I've brought up the FO3 endings before, and it is an apt comparison - your character was sacrificed for no reason other than the story said you had to, even when there was a companion who was 100% immune to radiation and could have gone in the chamber without breaking a sweat. Bethesda did the right thing ... they also sold a few DLCs, which I happily bought

[Kanon777]

Bethesda never fixed the ending for FO3, they made a post ending dlc, thats diferent than what you want (they didnt remove the premise of the ending or the final choices ou cna make, they just found a loophole for you to survive and play the DLC)

[Jackums]

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.

[Memnon]

Kanon777 wrote...

Bethesda never fixed the ending for FO3, they made a post ending dlc, thats diferent than what you want (they didnt remove the premise of the ending or the final choices ou cna make, they just found a loophole for you to survive and play the DLC)

Fair point - don't know if I would call it a loophole, as much as it was just common sense. You had a Super Mutant with you and a highly irradiated chamber someone had to enter to save the city. Pre-dlc if you asked the mutant to go in, he would say some silly thing like, "no this is your destiny" or some tripe like that. The DLC basically had the mutant say, "Yea, let me take care of that for you and let's move on and kill more stuff"

I get your point about how this isn't necessarily the same thing with ME3 endings - the only possible change I could see that would be in line with FO3 would be to give the Refusal ending a chance to have conventional victory. 

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Kanon777 wrote...

Bethesda never fixed the ending for FO3, they made a post ending dlc, thats diferent than what you want (they didnt remove the premise of the ending or the final choices ou cna make, they just found a loophole for you to survive and play the DLC)

By doing that, they fixed the ending. Its not how they did it, is that they somehow managed to fix it, when Bioware failed even though their endings being way horrible than the FO3 one.

[Kanon777]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Kanon777 wrote...

Bethesda never fixed the ending for FO3, they made a post ending dlc, thats diferent than what you want (they didnt remove the premise of the ending or the final choices ou cna make, they just found a loophole for you to survive and play the DLC)

By doing that, they fixed the ending. Its not how they did it, is that they somehow managed to fix it, when Bioware failed even though their endings being way horrible than the FO3 one.

Threy did NOT fix anything, if Bioware decided to have TIM show up at the last second  and die in sheppard's place, just so Shep could start a new story on the terminus system fighting mercenaries or something, it wouldnt "fix" any of the problems you have with the story of ME3 or the ending, it would be just an extension of the story, not a "fix"...

[SpamBot2000]

Most anything that would absolutely remove the whole Starchild concept out of Mass Effects 1 to n would most definitely be a fix. So it's not a groundbreaking narrative. Big deal. I play these things for the feel of things.

[Geneaux486]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Introducing new crucial plot devices in the last 10 minutes of the story is in no way good writing. No matter how hard you try, it simply can't be justified. It's terrible, just play TERRIBLE writing, to say the least.

The only thing introduced in the last ten minutes is the Catalyst, and he serves as nothing more than an expositional tool in terms of the telling of the story.  The motives of the Reapers were foreshadowed through all three games, primarily in the third.  There's nothing wrong with what they chose to do.

[AmstradHero]

Kanon777 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Kanon777 wrote...

Bethesda never fixed the ending for FO3, they made a post ending dlc, thats diferent than what you want (they didnt remove the premise of the ending or the final choices ou cna make, they just found a loophole for you to survive and play the DLC)

By doing that, they fixed the ending. Its not how they did it, is that they somehow managed to fix it, when Bioware failed even though their endings being way horrible than the FO3 one.

Threy did NOT fix anything, if Bioware decided to have TIM show up at the last second  and die in sheppard's place, just so Shep could start a new story on the terminus system fighting mercenaries or something, it wouldnt "fix" any of the problems you have with the story of ME3 or the ending, it would be just an extension of the story, not a "fix"...

Now you're just not making any sense here. I absolutely hated the ending to FO3. So much so that upon seeing it, I took out the disc from my computer uninstalled the game and never played it again. I hated the ending that much.

The reason I hated it was because I was forced to die in a pointless fashion that went completely against the characterisation of my Super Mutant friend and was an arbitrary decision just to make sure that the hero died. (Or I got the stupid "you weren't a hero because you refused to needessly sacrifice yourself" ending) The ending was broken because it made two characters act completely out of character for the sake of forcing the player's death.

Bethesda fixed the problem with this aspect of the ending by allowing the Super Mutant or Ghoul to act in character and allow the ending to be completed without additional loss of life. This fixes the core problem with the ending of Fallout 3.

The core problem with the endings to Mass Effect 3 isn't that they weren't explained enough, which is why the EC doesn't solve the inherent problems of the end of the game.

[T41rdEye]

I don't hate bioware, and I still love Mass Effect. I'm just severely disappointed with how the trilogy ended and upset at "what could have been."

Seriously. ME3 could have been SOOOO much better. <sadface>

[Hahn_Joshua]

Although still disappointing as a Bioware product, the Extended Cut is perfectly acceptable, and here's why: it appears to be a genuine attempt to give fans what they want, and fulfill promises made.  It still fails, simply because personal choice doesn't play into it to any noteworthy extent, but it was an attempt. They went a lot further than most designers would go. 

Had this been the original ending, I would have rated it as "mediocre", since this is a repair based on fan feedback, I rate it as "poor".  And even if it was the original, it would still have disappointed me, but it wouldn't have made me consider boycott, as the original did.

Since there are no interesting options at the end of the game, and the gameplay structure was not particularly appealing, I will be uninstalling ME3 after this post and not playing it again.  For all intents and purposes, it still has one ending, therefore it has no replay value to me.

Since Bioware made an honest attempt to fix their mistake, I will NOT be
boycotting them, and I was prepared to do it if
I got the vibe that the extended cut was an insult to the fans.  I still look forward to DA3, although I hope
after this they carefully re-evaluate how it's written.

You stand at a crossroads Bioware: on one side you have a renaissance, and a return to the success you once knew.  On the other, you have disappointment, shame, and complete assimilation into EA. 

Consider your next step carefully.

[Everwarden]

The Angry One wrote...
 I feel directly insulted.

Same. I'm not offended, mind you -- but the "fourth" ending seems like an intentional middle finger right at anyone who didn't want to pick a red, green, or blue button. 

[XJ347]

Tritium315 wrote...

I'll give 'em credit for making it less awful, but you know what they say about polishing a turd.

You stole my line LOL.

IMO they didn't really listen to us. The 3 endings are still the same, and the reject ending which IMO is the best ending for a paragon is a total FU to the fanbase. Can we not try to find another way to defeat them without sacraficing our soul? ... appearently not.

The only thing they actully changed is the crash landing and the mass relays. It turns the endings from hopeless to a possible bright future, and your friends are no longer doomed too. This shows me they could have changed the 3 endings to the better but refused.

The Normandy picking up your squadmades doesn't make any sense. How did they get there in 3 seconds? Why couldn't they fly next to the beam and drop off shepard? It was not that fat away and the Normandy can take a few hits from Harbringer and survive. You should have been dropped off, unharmed but then you get shot by TIM via anderson when he shoots you. So now you both are wounded and can continue the scene like normal.

Soooo why does the Catalist kill only artifical intelegence? It would makes sense if it targets only reaper code but that isn't what it targets. So how does it scan every computer in the galaxy and know what is VI and what is AI? I think it is really weak.

Ohh and the green ending, how are the geth made organic when the geth are code and can jump from body to body?  I also thought the EDI saying I am alive bit retarded when she has already admitted she felt alive on Earth. Green is definatly the worst ending. It boggles the mind.

I find paragon control ending interesting... how long can you keep your sanity before you start seeing people as numbers and then seeing how they would be better off being culled and reaped?

Last thought, where were the showing of our actions in the ending? I still was expecting to see a 2 second scene where a rachni saves a human, the STG kills a group of brutes with a trap and such. I wanted my actions to mean more than just numbers...  since i knew that the 3 endings were pretty much set in stone, I was expecting them but this was just a total letdown. 

So overall yes the ending is better, but not by much.

[DamonD7]

*shrugs* Erik Kain's right.

[Rex Fallout]

saracen16 wrote...

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.

I am a writer as well.  And the Catalyst is not introduced early on, he is introduced at the last minute- making him a DEM.  The Crucible was in fact a MacGuffin.  Both signs of poor writing.  

"Oh crap we made these invincible space squids and we need a way to beat them!  Unfortunately we can't look at the past two games, because that would be the obvious thing to do.  I know!  Let's introduce an entirely new idea of this magic device... we shall call it the crucible- and it will use the citadel... which is actually an AI known as the catalyst that makes the device work!  Huh?  I suppose it might be a bit out of nowhere and make little to no sense in established canon, but it'll work!  SPACE MAGIC!! :D"

Honestly, Son Goku has saved us from multiple aliens.  He shows up and BAM! Reapers dealt with.  Best. Ending. Ever.

[babymoon]

Rex Fallout wrote...

I am a writer as well.  And the Catalyst is not introduced early on, he is introduced at the last minute- making him a DEM.  The Crucible was in fact a MacGuffin.  Both signs of poor writing. 

[Tarkus 5]

Cyne wrote...

They do deserve credit for fixing some aspects of the ending. To be sure, this kind of gesture is rare in the gaming industry, they could have ignored it and no one would've been surprised. Did it make the ending perfect? NO NO NO not by a very long shot, but it did make it better than before.

I agree with Cyne's statement. It's not a perfect ending (so little things in life are) but it certainly helps clarify the starchilds origin and explains the choices much better.For me seeing Sheperd's crew and LI putting his name up on the Normandy's memorial board really helped.I also feel much better about the Synthesis ending.

I believe this is how the game should have been released from the start....... So I do give credit to the people on this forum for letting them know how upset we were with the original endings, but I also give much credit  to Bioware/EA for listening to are concerns and giving us the extended  cut dlc. So at least from me

.................THANK-YOU......Bioware/EA team.... for a truly remarkable Journey........................

Modifié par Tarkus 5, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:16 .

[Geneaux486]

Everwarden wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
 I feel directly insulted.

Same. I'm not offended, mind you -- but the "fourth" ending seems like an intentional middle finger right at anyone who didn't want to pick a red, green, or blue button. 

Fans were demanding the ability to refuse to use the Crucible, so Bioware put it in.  They put it in, fans are insulted.  No-win situation.

[Dragoonlordz]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
 I feel directly insulted.

Same. I'm not offended, mind you -- but the "fourth" ending seems like an intentional middle finger right at anyone who didn't want to pick a red, green, or blue button. 

Fans were demanding the ability to refuse to use the Crucible, so Bioware put it in.  They put it in, fans are insulted.  No-win situation.

I think it is more fans wanted the ability to refuse and reject it's logic which was their exact words at the time. They got given that ability and they now try to play the insulted card and move the goal posts and say that was only part of what they wanted.

[Grimwick]

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.

Agreed.

I do not feel in any way 'appreciative' and I don't have to be with that load of rubbish.

[Grimwick]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
 I feel directly insulted.

Same. I'm not offended, mind you -- but the "fourth" ending seems like an intentional middle finger right at anyone who didn't want to pick a red, green, or blue button. 

Fans were demanding the ability to refuse to use the Crucible, so Bioware put it in.  They put it in, fans are insulted.  No-win situation.

The refuse option was requested to reject the stupid logical flaws and premises' of the catalyst.

Nowhere in the reject ending did the fans want to be wiped out for doing so.

The so called 'reapers win' ending is independent of the reject ending and therefore it feels like a middle finger for being killed for it.