825 réponses à ce sujet

[Ageless Face]

Oransel wrote...
1. Any proofs that they were not minorities?

2. My point was: the game as a whole (including all sidemissions and quests) is shorter than previous ones.

3. Bad choice lore-wise and poor implementaion narrative-wise make it asspull.

5. Standards for ME3 are much higher as this is the last part of the trilogy, you can't just introduce things like Human-Reaper on this stage. And Catalyst not only fails to meet those standards, he is failing much harder than any other single thing in all 3 games as he is contradicting theme, logic and lore. Catalyst is foreshadowed? When? Ah, yeah, when one VI briefly mentions that Reapers may be programmed to exterminate all organic life. Wow, that was really cool forshadowing!

11. IGN told us entitled whiny minority - insult. Hudson said that fans just wanted closure - perversion of our wishes.

1. Proofs? The fact everyone is talking about the complaints that were about the Mako and explorations. The fact BioWare didn't even put the mako and there were no planet explorations during ME2, and the Hammerhead was in only in DLC. If people would really have been bothered it wasn't there, BioWare WOULD have put the mako/hammerhead in the game. In fact, I only have only seen complaints about lack of mako after ME3. Very few before it. 

2. And we are back to where we are started. Side missions don't build the game. They are adding to it. But a game can't rely on side missions to fill everything.

3. But you are not telling me why it is a bad choice lore wise. It was a plot device that saved the day. You will not find one thing in the media that doesn't have it. The difference is, that the Crucible was part of the plot, and had a large focus on it. Doesn't make it more of a plot device than most things. The protheans finding the Crucible plans is possible, is it not? Then it is not lore problematic.

5. Yet I don't understand why does the catalyst fails. He is the "final surprise". Okay, I will agree there weren't enough foreshadowing. But there still was. As for the Mass Effect's lore, why does the catalyst goes against everything we were taught during the game? We never knew what the reapers exactly are, who created them, who, if at all, controls them. That is what the catalyst is answering for.

11. Never saw anything from IGN that is calling us whiny minority. Nor any hint that BioWare is hiding behind it.

As for Hudson-

 
But we also recognize that some of our most passionate fans needed more closure, more answers, and more time to say goodbye to their stories—and these comments are equally valid. Player feedback such as this has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the series. 

 

I'm sorry, but wasn't it true? didn't we want all this things? Cause the ending was crappy for us? If not, then tell me what we wanted.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 14 juillet 2012 - 01:44 .

[spockjedi]

HagarIshay wrote...
I'm sorry, but wasn't it true? didn't we want all this things? Cause the ending was crappy for us? If not, then tell me what we wanted.

http://social.biowar...06/polls/31722/ and http://social.biowar...06/polls/30236/.

"Everything that comes after the beam" means EVERYTHING. The child, the "three choices" crap, the child's "logic", the confrontation with TIM. Not just the "lack of closure, answers and goodbyes".

Modifié par spockjedi, 14 juillet 2012 - 01:54 .

[shurikenmanta]

Wow.

Do yourself a favour, if ME3 constitutes a bad game for you, stay away from Daikatana or Superman 64. Your eyes'll melt and your brain'll leak out your ears.

[George Costanza]

Yeah, Mass Effect 3 isn't a bad game at all.

[string3r]

You also forgot to mention how Priority Earth is just horde mode. Such wasted potential.

[Ageless Face]

spockjedi wrote...
http://social.biowar...06/polls/31722/ and http://social.biowar...06/polls/30236/.

"Everything that comes after the beam" means EVERYTHING. The child, the "three choices" crap, the child's "logic", the confrontation with TIM. Not just the "lack of closure, answers and goodbyes".

And what should he have said? That the fans wanted the whole ending changed? You know BioWare couldn't so that. They were on a thin line. Telling the fans outright "I know you want the ending changed, but we are not going to do that" would have only upset the fans more. So they changed their wordings.

[Dendio1]

Mass effect 3 is not a bad game. Lets be real people.

Angry Joe would like to introduce you to Sonic riders Kinect's inability to control even the menu screen

How about Kayne and Lynch 2's 4 HOURS of gameplay

Mindjack.....


I hate to say it, but if you are going to list mass effect 3 among these, then i'll have to concede IGN was right and we have whiners among us

Modifié par Dendio1, 14 juillet 2012 - 02:18 .

[nitefyre410]

HagarIshay wrote...

*snip*


5. Yet I don't understand why does the catalyst fails. He is the "final surprise". Okay, I will agree there weren't enough foreshadowing. But there still was. As for the Mass Effect's lore, why does the catalyst goes against everything we were taught during the game? We never knew what the reapers exactly are, who created them, who, if at all, controls them. That is what the catalyst is answering for.

 

its the foreshadowing thats the biggest issue for the Catalyst. Instead  of through out the course of the ME 3 the player going different places , gather the resource and finding pieces of the puzzle   that is the existence of the Reapers and  Catalyst  where at the end we the information but it takes the exposition by the Catalyst itself  that puts the pieces of the puzzle together for us. 
 

[incinerator950]

This is a bad topic.

[Ageless Face]

nitefyre410 wrote...
its the foreshadowing thats the biggest issue for the Catalyst. Instead  of through out the course of the ME 3 the player going different places , gather the resource and finding pieces of the puzzle   that is the existence of the Reapers and  Catalyst  where at the end we the information but it takes the exposition by the Catalyst itself  that puts the pieces of the puzzle together for us. 
 

I will agree on that. I would have liked that the foreshaodwing will be much bigger. Instead, it all came in one cutscene that left us very confused because it was never talked about. But that means that the catalyst itself is not the problem, however. It's the how he was introduced. I don't know if introduction of the catalyst make hin a deus ex machina, and if it is, then I will concede on this point.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Dendio1 wrote...

Mass effect 3 is not a bad game. Lets be real people.

Angry Joe would like to introduce you to Sonic riders Kinect's inability to control even the menu screen

How about Kayne and Lynch 2's 4 HOURS of gameplay

Mindjack.....


I hate to say it, but if you are going to list mass effect 3 among these, then i'll have to concede IGN was right and we have whiners among us

Agreed.

[MTX99]

I don't know. Maybe the human race just hates the number three in a movie series. Here are some examples


Matrix Revolutions
Shrek 3
The God Father III
Return of The Jedi(great movie, not bad. But all star wars fans like Empire Strike Back better.)
Any Disney classic movie that some how got a II or III spin off(Cinderella, Little Mermiad ect..) Rightfully so.


The only threes off hand I know people love to death

Toy Story III
Army of Darkness
The Dark Knight Rises(We know it will happen)

[RSX Titan]

Raizo wrote...

It's not exactly a bad game. It's a great TPS and it easily competes on the same level as the Gears of War Games. It is however a mediocre RPG and even more importantly a disappointing follow up to ME1 and ME2. If you are a true ME fan then it would be physically impossible to play ME3 without mourning over the loss of what it could/would/should have been, there are far to many lost opportunities, cut corners and dumb ass decisions.

GoW combat destroys ME combat. Bioware has never understood that the shooter crowd will gravitate toward games that provide a better shooter experience. I love RPGs and Shooters. If I'm in the mood for a combat driven game, I play Halo, COD, or BF3. I don't ever fire up a ME game if I'm in that mood. In their effort to gain a wider market share, they alienated their core fanbase. I realize this is subjective but it seems to hold true for people I know that are into both types of games.

[robertthebard]

RSX Titan wrote...

Raizo wrote...

It's not exactly a bad game. It's a great TPS and it easily competes on the same level as the Gears of War Games. It is however a mediocre RPG and even more importantly a disappointing follow up to ME1 and ME2. If you are a true ME fan then it would be physically impossible to play ME3 without mourning over the loss of what it could/would/should have been, there are far to many lost opportunities, cut corners and dumb ass decisions.

GoW combat destroys ME combat. Bioware has never understood that the shooter crowd will gravitate toward games that provide a better shooter experience. I love RPGs and Shooters. If I'm in the mood for a combat driven game, I play Halo, COD, or BF3. I don't ever fire up a ME game if I'm in that mood. In their effort to gain a wider market share, they alienated their core fanbase. I realize this is subjective but it seems to hold true for people I know that are into both types of games.

By the same token, I would never look to CoD if I'm wanting to RP.  They are completely different genres and comparing them isn't really worth the time, from my perspective.  I didn't buy ME initially because I don't like shooters.  I'm too old to play "twitch" games, so I stayed in my nice comfortable RPG mode, barring some MMO's with PvP that I enjoyed for a while.  However, to address one of Raizo's points, I don't feel that disconnect.  Of course, that may be because I feel like the best ending would have been at London, which I seem to say way too much.  To me, anything past that is gravy.  I enjoyed all three games immensely, and am still enjoying them, although, as I stated in another "I hate ME 3" thread, it's hard to play 1 now, after the changes in 2 and 3.

[spockjedi]

HagarIshay wrote...
And what should he have said? That the fans wanted the whole ending changed? You know BioWare couldn't so that. They were on a thin line. Telling the fans outright "I know you want the ending changed, but we are not going to do that" would have only upset the fans more. So they changed their wordings.

He should be honest, just like you are being now. Not inventing what we wanted. And if they didn't want the fans to be upset, they should have changed the ending.

[robertthebard]

spockjedi wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...
And what should he have said? That the fans wanted the whole ending changed? You know BioWare couldn't so that. They were on a thin line. Telling the fans outright "I know you want the ending changed, but we are not going to do that" would have only upset the fans more. So they changed their wordings.

He should be honest, just like you are being now. Not inventing what we wanted. And if they didn't want the fans to be upset, they should have changed the ending.

I agree, they should have cut everything after the beam in London, and rolled the credits.

[Richter09_3D]

robertthebard wrote...

spockjedi wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...
And what should he have said? That the fans wanted the whole ending changed? You know BioWare couldn't so that. They were on a thin line. Telling the fans outright "I know you want the ending changed, but we are not going to do that" would have only upset the fans more. So they changed their wordings.

He should be honest, just like you are being now. Not inventing what we wanted. And if they didn't want the fans to be upset, they should have changed the ending.

I agree, they should have cut everything after the beam in London, and rolled the credits.

But surely that would have left a cliffhanger which everyone would complain about instead? Think about it: the reapers are still there and the fate of the universe would be ambiguous

[Ageless Face]

spockjedi wrote...
He should be honest, just like you are being now. Not inventing what we wanted. And if they didn't want the fans to be upset, they should have changed the ending.

Fair enough. I guess can understand why you will find it upsetting. But do you find it offensive, as an insult to the fans? 

About changing the ending- I know you probably heard it enough times on this forums, but I think it's worth repeating. The game is theirs. As much as we would like to get everything we asked for, we can't. They created the game, and yes- it's their art. Will you demand from a writer to change his book?

[Tonymac]

robertthebard wrote...

spockjedi wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...
And what should he have said? That the fans wanted the whole ending changed? You know BioWare couldn't so that. They were on a thin line. Telling the fans outright "I know you want the ending changed, but we are not going to do that" would have only upset the fans more. So they changed their wordings.

He should be honest, just like you are being now. Not inventing what we wanted. And if they didn't want the fans to be upset, they should have changed the ending.

I agree, they should have cut everything after the beam in London, and rolled the credits.

I think they should have stayed with what Mass Effect originally was.  The whole Starchild / Catalyst thing is terrible.  Its horrible writing -  just like having SC help us because we made it a power source.  Sometimes you just have to say that the writers borked it - This is one of those cases.

What was so amazing and mystical in ME1 and 2 was the Reapers themselves.  They were amazing and powerful - mysterious.....  yet Alive.  Sovereign was a force to be reckoned with.  Had his shields not dropped, the Reapers would have won.  In 2, Harbinger was annoying - yet he showed off his biotic abilities.  He could possess the Collectors even from as far away as dark space - and launch biotic attacks that were pretty impressive.  All in all, Harbinger made it seem like a game - we are little pawns on a chess board he fiddles with for his amusement.  The fact that he used the previous cycles conquered residents lent one to believe that the Reapers were evil beyond belief.  Organics - us - we were just slime in a petri dish to him.

In Mass Effect 3, the Reapers are chewtoys.  They are not powerful, we are killing them as part of the stroyline, they have very few lines of speech - and they are pawns to a computer.  Reapers went from being terrifying and "eacha  nation, independent of weakness" to servants of a kid - program.  I call that a huge letdown.

ME3 is not a bad game - but it is a poorly thought out game as far as the storyline went.  Its like the writers just gave up and went on vacation, and had their kids write the ending.

[Steelcan]

Bad Game? NO. Worthy successor to ME 2, also NO. Its a fine game that is disappointing in some areas, but overall it is a good game, not great, but good. Has a good plot (minus the deus ex machinas Crucible and Starbrat), Extended cut adds additional closure, better gunplay and gameplay, several good story arcs, and you can kill Udina
All that said there were things wrong with the game, too few actual side missions, and a lack of impact on certain choices carried over from the other games, but all in all not a bad game just not as good as it should have been

[tonnactus]

HagarIshay wrote...
Will you demand from a writer to change his book?

www.youtube.com/watch

Casey Hudson:
"This is your story. Your adventure".

But the expectation of developers keeping their promises makes fans entitled i guess.

[Haargel]

Thanks for your opinion.

ME1 also had it's flaw, clumsy combat, the Mako, it doesn't make it bad imo.
ME3 wasn't perfect either, it was a bit to short and a bit to straightforward for me, and the lack of hub worlds was a pain.

I can't think of anything bad from ME2 though.

Nobody's perfect. What I see is all the complains and that someone's 6 year old brother could write a better story, yet I have never see someone doing it.

There are some variations on the endings but not something completely new. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

[Tocquevillain]

tonnactus wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...
Will you demand from a writer to change his book?

www.youtube.com/watch

Casey Hudson:
"This is your story. Your adventure".

But the expectation of developers keeping their promises makes fans entitled i guess.

It was never your story to begin with. Ever notice how the games all force you to go through the same events no matter how many new characters you start? Explain to me how you were satisfied with ME1 and 2 and then said ME3 sucked because it did the exact same thing. 

[nitefyre410]

HagarIshay wrote...
Will you demand from a writer to change his book?

Its not unprecendented  for that to happen. 

HagarIshay wrote...



I will agree on that. I would have liked that the foreshaodwing will be much bigger. Instead, it all came in one cutscene that left us very confused because it was never talked about. But that means that the catalyst itself is not the problem, however. It's the how he was introduced. I don't know if introduction of the catalyst make hin a deus ex machina, and if it is, then I will concede on this point.

    


 Deus Ex Machina happen all the time, more often than what a lot of fans may think - the trick is that most usually write in such a way were its not blatant and completely out of the blue. 
 
TTGL  is a series that completely deconstructs the Deus Ex Machina and then makes it work for its favor.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 14 juillet 2012 - 04:34 .

[Oransel]

HagarIshay wrote...

1. Proofs? The fact everyone is talking about the complaints that were about the Mako and explorations. The fact BioWare didn't even put the mako and there were no planet explorations during ME2, and the Hammerhead was in only in DLC. If people would really have been bothered it wasn't there, BioWare WOULD have put the mako/hammerhead in the game. In fact, I only have only seen complaints about lack of mako after ME3. Very few before it. 

2. And we are back to where we are started. Side missions don't build the game. They are adding to it. But a game can't rely on side missions to fill everything.

3. But you are not telling me why it is a bad choice lore wise. It was a plot device that saved the day. You will not find one thing in the media that doesn't have it. The difference is, that the Crucible was part of the plot, and had a large focus on it. Doesn't make it more of a plot device than most things. The protheans finding the Crucible plans is possible, is it not? Then it is not lore problematic.

5. Yet I don't understand why does the catalyst fails. He is the "final surprise". Okay, I will agree there weren't enough foreshadowing. But there still was. As for the Mass Effect's lore, why does the catalyst goes against everything we were taught during the game? We never knew what the reapers exactly are, who created them, who, if at all, controls them. That is what the catalyst is answering for.

11. Never saw anything from IGN that is calling us whiny minority. Nor any hint that BioWare is hiding behind it.

As for Hudson-

 
But we also recognize that some of our most passionate fans needed more closure, more answers, and more time to say goodbye to their stories—and these comments are equally valid. Player feedback such as this has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the series. 

 

I'm sorry, but wasn't it true? didn't we want all this things? Cause the ending was crappy for us? If not, then tell me what we wanted.

1. You have just told me that non-main plot related things do not matter. If people do not want to play side-missions, they should not, you said. Ok. Exploration is optional and if people haven't liked it, they shouldn't have played exploration part, while those who liked it, should had an ability to explore. This makes me believe that most of players either liked exploration or didn't bother. Yet, some fans disliked it and wanted it removed. Bioware took the easiest route to cut game. Exploration should have been included because if people truly hated Mako, they should not have played the part including it. Bioware taking the easiest and most stupid way to cut the game more is the problem for me.

2. Yes. We can conclude that ME3 main story is larger than ME1-2 main story, but ME1-2 are larger overall.

3. Because it's cheap. Non-imaginative, non-original, generic. Creates plotholes lore-wise (why there aren't any other traces of this weapon? Why is it on Mars of all places, not Eden Prime? Why was it found in last 5 minutes? How we haven't learnt anything about it from Vigil?). I think the problem I have with it is it's being generic like in B-class Hollywood blockbuster (in previously original games using imagination) and not being forshadowed at all in Mass Effect 1 and 2. Not to mention plotholes.

5. No, he was not forshadowed at all. 1 sentence in 80+ hour trilogy? Really? Why his existence goes against everything we have in game? Where would I begin?..
..maybe with dozens of plotholes he creates? Like why he couldn't open Citadel for the Reapers?
..maybe because there should not be any answers on questions you listed? That's right, Reapers should not be explained for many reasons.
..maybe because he makes the conflict of organics and synthetics as central out of nowhere? For note - this conflict has already been resolved.
..maybe because he is exactly as cheap, unoriginal and simply bad written? Like in the 9 years old fat nerd boy fanfiction?
..or maybe just because he is absolutely unneccessary?
Take any answer, you want, they all are right.

11. Other people have already answered that for you.