mashintao wrote...
Quite simple, actually: have the DLC affect the ending in some way.
iakus wrote...
chemiclord wrote...
The only thing that bothers me with DLC adding anything to the endings is that it is effectively making players pay for content that should have been in the game to begin with. I do not like the idea of paid DLC that significantly changes a narrative... once companies get the idea they can get away with such bull****, you open the door to a Pandora's Box that will leave gamers sighing, "Day 1 DLC isn't all that bad after all."
Sadly, people are already claiming that with DLCs. Remember the "From Ashes" stir? I get the feeling that if that got to be toom much of a habit fro copanies, players will adjust by simply not preordering anymore. Just wait until all the "real" content is avilable.
As for myself, I could theoretically be lured back with at least Shepard Lives being made definite over ambiguous. Or modding tools being released so so that players can make their own endings (although that one is about as likely as the Syntheis being scientifically plausible)
Ah, always good to see other sane people on BSN not fooled by the JMT of EC. I too wanted a fruitful ending which would actually reward me for going that extra mile with keeping my Shepard and team intact. Those that said Shep needed to die for the sake of sacrifice must've kept the VS, Mordin, Wrex, the ME2 team, Kirrahe, Thane, Anderson, The Feros colonists, and every other civillian or character even within knowledge of existence to Shepard alive. ME3 was grim, grim, hey you and krogans killed a reaper!, grim, grim, hey you and quarians killed a reaper!, grim, grim, grimdark.Wu the Lotus Blossom wrote...
3DandBeyond wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
3DandBeyond wrote...
Some of you do and some of us don't want to be forced into it with no logical reason for it. That is the promise that existed in the games up until the ending. The ending is like a totally new game. If you didn't like a high EMS refuse possible win ending who would be forcing you to buy that DLC and play it?
How would it hurt you?
Well, while such a DLC would trash the coherence of the game world, you're quite right that it wouldn't have any effect on my game world since I wouldn't buy it. I have never opposed making a DLC that makes the game worse as long as that DLC isn't bundled with something I actually want. Back when the EC was being designed this was a live issue; you were around here when the battle lines were drawn around "happy endings," right? As I repeatedly said, I had no problem with a happy ending DLC as long as it was separate from the EC, since I did want the EC and didn't want a happier ending. I kinda sorta lost that fight, since I would have preferred it if the relays stayed destroyed. OTOH, that only really made sense in Destroy, and I don't play that ending anyway.
Ok you really lost me here, how does adding a decent coherent possible win ending trash the coherence of the game world? The game is pretty god awful for a lot of it and then brilliant in a few parts and the ending is like it's from another universe completely because it's from other games and stories. It's not an ending to ME3. I have consistently said that we should have gotten what was promised because that made sense. Our choices would lead to things that could be bad or could be better, but the galaxy is still a shambles. A win would be people at last able to stand on their own and self-determine with Shepard alive. But it could also be that same galaxy with Shepard dead, having given all to save others.
The ending that is trashes at least one game world-the world of ME. It's nonsense and total space magic just to force so-called hard choices on players. The best choice is critical mission failure because it is critical game failure. And yes, I was around here for happy endings discussion and you know what I mostly saw in all that? Someone said they would like one possible happy ending and they constantly got ridiculed for it. The next post would be someone telling them to quite whining about wanting butterflies and ponies and just a happy ending when that was utter BS. I know because I would explain at length (really, I write long posts) just what I said above. Not just one possible happier ending that you had to work hard to get, but sadder sacrificial, darker ones as well and others that were bittersweet. Shepard could live, LI could die, teammates could die, reapers defeated. And the other iterations that we were promised. And I said, Shepard had already sacrificed a lot, had died once, had never had a life, the galaxy was a mess, billions dead, destruction everywere, and that is not a butterflies and ponies ending. And for that I got ridiculed for only wanting a happy sappy cheesy ending. I never did. Now, yes I want one because I got exactly nothing in this game. I got crap. The least they could do is add something that would take this horrible taste out of my mouth-a little of what was promised in ME1 and 2-that if I worked hard, got all assets, saved my teammates, and so on I might win in just one freaking ending.
People say a conventional victory makes no sense and I say again, BS. If synthesis makes sense then so does finding different ways to actually try and use those stupid assets we played fetch to get. Instead we have idiots running headlong at reapers, out in the open, not using any kind of cover, shooting assault rifles and pistols at them. Yeah a high EMS refuse ending would really trash the game world and ruin the logic of ME3. Tell me when the logic of it starts.
Throughout the entire series, I searched the map for every single deposit, I scanned every single planet, I did every single sidequest. That's how much I loved the game and that's how much I wanted victory. I'm one of those people you mentioned who think that a happy(ish) ending should have at least been an option. I'll admit, it made me feel very hopeful seeing Shepard take a breath at the very end, but I do wish at least that ending could have been expanded a little. I don't think that's silly at all, we're just different people and we had different expectations. I'll even admit to being cheesy, it doesn't bother me at all.
Conniving_Eagle wrote...
fiendishchicken wrote...
Add a high EMS refuse.
My whole issue with the ending is also technical.
Instead of giving a last second choice that decides your outcome, why not just make an ending that is determined from all the choices, morality, and assets collected throughout the trilogy?
Basically none of those matter as is. Make War Assets similar to how the Normandy upgrades worked for the SM in ME2. That would have been so much better and easier. And have the ability to allocate those assets to separate area's of battle.
This is what I wanted.
lynch108 wrote...
Dlc that ads on to the end if the story is the oldest type of add-on content that exists. I don't see a problem with this.
Modifié par iakus, 29 juillet 2012 - 12:26 .
chemiclord wrote...
The only thing that bothers me with DLC adding anything to the endings is that it is effectively making players pay for content that should have been in the game to begin with. I do not like the idea of paid DLC that significantly changes a narrative... once companies get the idea they can get away with such bull****, you open the door to a Pandora's Box that will leave gamers sighing, "Day 1 DLC isn't all that bad after all."
Stornskar wrote...
chemiclord wrote...
The only thing that bothers me with DLC adding anything to the endings is that it is effectively making players pay for content that should have been in the game to begin with. I do not like the idea of paid DLC that significantly changes a narrative... once companies get the idea they can get away with such bull****, you open the door to a Pandora's Box that will leave gamers sighing, "Day 1 DLC isn't all that bad after all."
While I agree with your premise, there is precedent - the Broken Steel DLC for Fallout 3 comes to mind ...
tamperous wrote...
I don't think they know how they're going to sell it. That's why they've taken so long to announce it.
Modifié par Fen1sa, 29 juillet 2012 - 01:23 .
PanzerGr3nadier wrote...
Nefla wrote...
Post ending DLC or nothing.
You honestly think they would make it so soon??
I don't think BW is going to market it to the people that are not interested in it.
I'm buying it and before you start to bash me; The ending sucks, there is no getting away from it. But hey, You can create your own headcanon and forget the BW's vision.
fiendishchicken wrote...
Add a high EMS refuse.
My whole issue with the ending is also technical.
Instead of giving a last second choice that decides your outcome, why not just make an ending that is determined from all the choices, morality, and assets collected throughout the trilogy?
Basically none of those matter as is. Make War Assets similar to how the Normandy upgrades worked for the SM in ME2. That would have been so much better and easier. And have the ability to allocate those assets to separate area's of battle.
Nefla wrote...
No I don't, I don't actually think they will ever make post ending DLC, how could they with the endings as they are now? The only choices where post ending DLC would even work would be destroy and refuse.
I won't be unhappy with "anything BioWare does."Big Mac Heart Attack wrote...
It seems to me that a large group of players that hate the ending, have said multiple times that they will never buy another BioWare product again. So I'm guessing that BioWare doesn't really care what these people think anymore since they aren't going to buy anything.
Though IMO a DLC that expands the Destroy ending is the best choice for BioWare, have Shepard actually live and I think people would be happy. Just ignore Control and Synthesis as they are both equally bad. But then again, you'll get people who whine about having to make sacrifices to kill the Reapers(EDI and the Geth),
So really I don't know, you're dealing with a target audience who won't be happy with anything BioWare does, maybe they should just ignore them and then maybe they'll go away.
TheRealJayDee wrote...
Well, I have pretty much all the DLC for DA:O and ME1+2, and none of the DA2 ones. I might get DLC for ME3, but it'd need to be reallyreallyreally good, and/or free, and/or improve the endings further.
Making non CE players pay for Javik was already a bad way to start into ME3 DLC...
Eterna5 wrote...
Conniving_Eagle wrote...
fiendishchicken wrote...
Add a high EMS refuse.
My whole issue with the ending is also technical.
Instead of giving a last second choice that decides your outcome, why not just make an ending that is determined from all the choices, morality, and assets collected throughout the trilogy?
Basically none of those matter as is. Make War Assets similar to how the Normandy upgrades worked for the SM in ME2. That would have been so much better and easier. And have the ability to allocate those assets to separate area's of battle.
This is what I wanted.
Because that would require factoring in countless varialbes between different Shepards and would require a ludicrous amount of different endings. It's totally unrealistic to expect that.
Retour en haut