495 réponses à ce sujet

[Kel Riever]

There's a lot of good endings that are not happy endings.

Mass Effect 3 didn't have any of them. They combined the perfect elements of unhappy endings with poor writing. Well done on the double!

[Fawx9]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Fawx9 wrote... 

LOL, this is hillarious.  You can't admit that your wrong so now you're saying that it was a PR stunt and the fans backlash meant nothing?

Actually there wasn't that mch backlash and I know you didn't read my comment since I admitted I was wrong about Mike Morhaime. 

Fawx9 wrote... 

Also what does SC and WoTLK release have anything to do with the Real ID fiasco.

In the end this is what happened (in reality, not in your made up world)

1) In game Real ID released late june 2010 on WoW and SC2 near release later that month.

2) Plans for forums Real ID revealed early july 2010

Yet its still not a fiasco and you still miss that article was in 2010 not 2007 with WotLK or 2009 with SC2. 

Fawx9 wrote...  

3) Mass fan backlash

4) 3 days later Blizzard's president steps in and says they are cancelling the feature casuing the fan backlash, due to reviewing fan feedback

Again the fans weren't deemed a vocal minority, they caused change, and weren't simply hand waved away because 'internet rage'.

If you want to believe in some made up story in your head thats fine. Just don't go spouting it off as fact.

All I see is straw-men based on how everything on the Internet is a contraversy.  Another one is if the "fan" outrage as big as you think then Battlenet would be filled with UI threads and pro players would have left en-masse while the opposite has happened.

I don't know why I'm bothering but I feel like correcting you again.

1) That article is clearly posted in 2010, I don't know how you missed that. For reference.

2) It was a fiasco. There was roughly 50K posts made in one thread, in NA only, in under 3 days. To put that into perspective the IT Mark II thread got to 2222 pages which at 25 posts per page is little over 55K. This took 3 months.
The rate of people coming in and discussing(criticizing) the proposed changes was unprecedented.

Simply put the changes made to the plans for Real ID, in under 3 days, was driven entirely by fan demand.

They weren't considered a negligable minority even though it was just posts on the forums. Blizzard listened to them and made changes. 

I don't see why you are being so stubborn about admitting that fans on forums can, at times, be taken as a legitimate number of customers to base descisions on.

[dirty console peasant]

Everyone, PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. You know who I am talking about.

[RethenX]

your asking for too damn much bro! calm down!

[dirty console peasant]

bump

[AlanC9]

Dude, bumping your own thread is just asking for a lock.

[OMTING52601]

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

 At the end of ME1 I felt victorious
Same with ME2
ME3 left me feeling like I had lost even post EC
I do not play a game to lose I play it to win.

Ditto. I mean, really, the first two games set Shep up against completely unrealistic odds of survival, let alone victory, but Shep managed to get it done and 'win'. All the commentary about 'knowing Shep was gonna die, knowing the end was gonna be bittersweet', well most of it is from folks I'd never seen post a thing prior to explosion after the game was released. I don't recall seeing a single thread prior to the game coming out where somebody demanded every ending of ME 3 MUST have Shep martyring him/herself. I know there were some that said there should be an OPTION for Shep to die, or that they figured there'd be an ending where Shep died(and one where the Reapers won), but I don't recall a call to arms for Martyr Space Jesus Shep. But I'll admit, FTL forums, I may have missed posts like that BEFORE the game came out.

And before the hog pile of 'my Shep didn't die'... Yeah, they did. Initially. Counting an easter egg that was offered up only to those who played MP or Apps - items which were NOT available to all players - is erroneous, IMO. Of course, post EC, many more SP only players can see the chest pump NOW, but not at the original games end, which is where my opinion was formed and the EC did nothing to change that.

Still felt like I lost the game. I mean, bittersweet is one thing in a movie I spend maybe two hours watching or even in a book which I spend the same time on. Totally different if it's at the end of a hundred plus hours of involvement. LMAO, crazy as it is, having people suggest I should be thrilled with the Shep's dead, suck it up(or Shep's barely hanging on but you won't ever know if s/he is ever 'right' again, let alone with his/her LI, na na na na na na speculate) because it's bittersweet and that's like AWESOME makes me quirk a brow, shake my head, and wonder.

Bittersweet hasn't ever been a flavor of choice for me, mostly since bittersweet generally isn't good. It's good to start, but leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. And most humans tend to remember negative things much longer and in more detail than good things. We're wired that way for good reason. Eat that berry that tastes good to start with, but turns acrid, and then makes you puke your guts up and nearly die - well, better to remember how bad it tasted and how sick you got than that it tasted great... at first.

FWIW, YMMV. 

[BerzerkGene]

iamweaver wrote...

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

<snip>
Synthesis- no, just no completely creeps me out aside from completely killing all culture:sick:
<snip>

I'm confused.  How does synthesis kill all culture?

Everyone is the same. They even accept the Reapers help. Unless some serious rewriting has gone on upstairs, that would not happen. Would any species simply accept the (green) Reapers help? No.

Sleepdribble wrote...

If you can't squeeze one tiny ounce
of victorious joy from any EC ending, then I'd say the fault lies with
you, my young foot-stomping, lip-pouting friend. Instead of scrapping
the bottom of the whine-barrel in order to look like one of the cool
kids, how 'bout you give the game one more go with an open mind. Or, if
you're not that way inclined, (and I admit this is a wildly radical
idea) give some other game the benefit of your joy-sucking wisdom. Or
just play ME 1 and 2 again. I'm not really fussed about what you do in
your spare time.
 

I would if it actually seemed like a victory. 3/4 endings the reapers survive. Thats not a victory. I want them dead. The last option is then Destroy, which forces me to kill an entire race, probably the nicest race in the galaxy as well as EDI. Thats Genocide. The implications that it destroys all VIs too is horrible, you would set back technology years if not decades.
The fact you overcome this huge powerful enemy without anything you actually do meaning anything makes the entire series feel like a waste of time. You could unite the entire galaxy, or kill every single person in your path and it makes no difference besides which slides you get to see. Big frikkin deal.
I cannot bring myself to play ME1 or 2 again simply because i know anything i do is for naught. Doesn't matter who i romance, doesn't matter if i keep the genophage cure or chuck it out, whether i kill the heretic geth or rewrite them. It means nothing.

[BerzerkGene]

DocGriffin wrote...

Shepard Cmdr wrote...
Synthesis- no, just no completely creeps me out aside from completely killing all culture:sick:
Control- too many variables too much possibility for Shep to go crazy and restart the cycle
Destroy- just look at my sig and take a guess
All of the choices were choosing how you lose not choosing how you win.  I just wanted a victory, maybe with some losses, but not entire sentient races, and then a clip of Shepard with his/her LI a la TDKR.  I really do not think that is too much to ask.

Oh I see, you were looking for an ending without any bittersweet elements to it. Honestly, I went into the game knowing there wouldn't be a 'perfect' ending. It's practically drilled into your head that 'hey, we're not coming out of this unscathed,' so I think if you come to terms with that it's a lot easier to enjoy the endings.


And as far as the 'the choices were choosing how you lose' comment, I disagree, it's more which side of bitter would you like with your sweet. And honestly, that bitter can change from person to person. For example, I don't have any 'space magic' or moral issues with Synthesis, the bitter for me there is Shepard dying. I suppose it's a pick your poison scenario, but certainly not a choice of loss altogether. All the endings felt like a win scenario for me.

You lsoe millions-billions in the war. You lose characters, mordin(or you lose wrex and eve), thane(or kirrahe if thane already died), legion(or tali, either way one dies). If you didn't play the game nigh perfectly you can lose much more. A perfect ending is impossible, but would use exactly the same amount of magic as we got anyway. If Shepard had to die too, sure, i could live with that. But how you die is horrible narratively.

Its not exactly a choice of how you lose, but its not far off the mark. You are allowed to win. Nothing you do on your own counts for anything. It doesn't even make sense you are allowed to win.
Synthesis is magic. The Reapers are advanced(but not so advanced we can't figure out their technology and copy it), but synthesis puts them into the "Any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" level. Every other bit of Reaper tech to date can be explained, except the magic of the Catalyst. Morphing every single life form in the galaxy into something else is impossible. One species, okay, but millions of species, from bacteria, to humans, to yahg, to the Geth. That is utter bull****. It destroys everything that made the races different from each other to make this weird green lined society where everything is perfect and peaceful. Including the Reapers, who have no reason to do so. synthesis is meant to be the best ending, yet it fails fantastically when it comes to anything approaching logic.

[BerzerkGene]

iamweaver wrote...

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

<snip>
Synthesis- no, just no completely creeps me out aside from completely killing all culture:sick:
<snip>

I'm confused.  How does synthesis kill all culture?

like this
www.youtube.com/watch
skip to about 1:40 for the good part

Are you saying that synthesis means that we will no longer have problems to overcome?  Why is that?  Synthesis allows, somehow, organics to be able to incorporate nanomachines into their DNA.  This does not eliminate all problems. This simply means that organics can continue to advance past their current physical limitations, matching the growth of synthetics.

The catalyst basically assures you that synthesis will solve the problem for all time and bring lasting peace to the galaxy, which the epilogue supports. He also mentions "understanding" will come with the change. Sounds a lot like brainwashing.

Synthesis doesn't actually put nanomachines into people's dna. The Dna line is scrapped in favor of 'essense'. Its meant to be a true merging of man and machine. Visually it doesn't seem to do much beyond giving everyone glowy green eyes and lines on their skin. It does not even heal Joker's Vrolik's syndrome. from that little scene that begins EDI's epilogue, it has given her DNA, which she would have previously been lacking, made it green and somehow made it actually work in conjuction with her hardware.

'advance past their current physical limitations' by imposing new ones. All life in the galaxy has been warped. That includes bacteria and viruses. Medical technology has to be remade from the ground up, theres nothing stopping a hybrid virus infecting everyone(which is even easier with how similar they are now) and just killing everything.

Theres still the problem that the new hybrid people will probably make new synthetic beings anyway. Some say no, why would they, they're better than they are? Not so, the only ones who are truly better than a pure AI would be the geth, who are still technically software. Vi's and the like would still be continued to be used, which are purely synthetic.

The catalyst never considers anything long term and any options presented by him are inherently flawed. ESPECIALLY synthesis.

Modifié par BerzerkGene, 02 août 2012 - 05:22 .

[Blueprotoss]

AresKeith wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Ok. You've offered a jumble of fluff and no meat. Still.

Yet there's a lot of meat with Bioware's quick announcment then release of the EC based on the amount of CG work.  Hek there's enough meat alone with Martin to in Sheen's quote at the end of the voice actor trailer for ME3.  I know you're going to ignore this again solely based you don't want to be wrong even when the facts don't agree with your opinion.

the same can be said about you since, Martin could be talking about any DLC, and having the EC planned before all this mean Bioware wanted this to happen, and makes them the most shady Video Game developers ever, thats what your saying basically

DLC isn't a shaddy practiice just like how the old Expansion packs on PC games weren't shaddy as well.  Its the easiest way to assume that Bioware didn't produce the EC wasn't started on before ME3's launch while you act as its a conspiracy when Bioware started the EC before ME3's launch.  Either way you're crying over spilt milk because the EC is free.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 02 août 2012 - 01:00 .

[Blueprotoss]

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

Everyone, PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. You know who I am talking about.

Yet you shouldn't insult people based on how you would be the "troll".  Next time please do the research before abusing words that you don't know the meaning to.

[GreyLycanTrope]

http://idioms.thefre...er spilled milk
please use your idioms correctly.

[Blueprotoss]

Fawx9 wrote...

I don't know why I'm bothering but I feel like correcting you again.

Yet you aren't based on how its opinion not fact that you're focusing on.

Fawx9 wrote... 

1) That article is clearly posted in 2010, I don't know how you missed that. For reference.

It shows how you read the comments of others based on how I acknowledged the article was published in 2010, but you forget that WotLK was released in 2007 and Starcraft 2 was released in 2009.

Fawx9 wrote... 

2) It was a fiasco. There was roughly 50K posts made in one thread, in NA only, in under 3 days. To put that into perspective the IT Mark II thread got to 2222 pages which at 25 posts per page is little over 55K. This took 3
months.
The rate of people coming in and discussing(criticizing) the proposed changes was unprecedented.

I couldcareless about a forum on Battlenet just like any other offical forum based on there's always a small overreaction.  Btw some people try to turn anything into a problem because of the anonymiity that the Internet gives.

Fawx9 wrote... 

Simply put the changes made to the plans for Real ID, in under 3 days, was driven entirely by fan demand. 

If thats true then Real ID wouldn't be a primary part in Battlenet.

Fawx9 wrote... 

They weren't considered a negligable minority even though it was just posts on the forums. Blizzard listened to them and made changes. 

Small uproars come do from the minority especially when most of the Battlenet members didn't get bothered by the Real ID system.

Fawx9 wrote... 

I don't see why you are being so stubborn about admitting that fans on forums can, at times, be taken as a legitimate number of customers to base descisions on. 

I'm not being stubborn at all while its ironic when you're actualy the stubborn one.  If they were legitimate custmers then they would supply constructive criticism instead of petty insults directed at Blizzard.  This is nothing new and its time to move on.

[Blueprotoss]

Greylycantrope wrote...

http://idioms.thefre...er spilled milk
please use your idioms correctly.

Yet I did correctly use it especially with the context it was in.  Maybe you shouldn't waste your time on such petty things like insults or Grammar Na.zi tasks.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 02 août 2012 - 01:21 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Not in that context you're not

[Blueprotoss]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Not in that context you're not

Either way its in the correct context and I'm surprised someone is worried about semantics like this.

[Jayleia]

Ozida wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
I think their audience is doing just fine.....the millions that like the game are spending their time playing it, while the people that hate it are spending their time here on the forums.....

Wait, what?.. Where do you get this data from?

99% of all statistics are pulled from...places you don't want to think about.  Including the statistic I just used

[GreyLycanTrope]

Jayleia wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
I think their audience is doing just fine.....the millions that like the game are spending their time playing it, while the people that hate it are spending their time here on the forums.....

Wait, what?.. Where do you get this data from?

99% of all statistics are pulled from...places you don't want to think about.  Including the statistic I just used

This statement is 100% accurate.

[Applepie_Svk]

Silence is you answer ...

[Fawx9]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

I don't know why I'm bothering but I feel like correcting you again.

Yet you aren't based on how its opinion not fact that you're focusing on.

Fawx9 wrote... 

1) That article is clearly posted in 2010, I don't know how you missed that. For reference.

It shows how you read the comments of others based on how I acknowledged the article was published in 2010, but you forget that WotLK was released in 2007 and Starcraft 2 was released in 2009.

Fawx9 wrote... 

2) It was a fiasco. There was roughly 50K posts made in one thread, in NA only, in under 3 days. To put that into perspective the IT Mark II thread got to 2222 pages which at 25 posts per page is little over 55K. This took 3
months.
The rate of people coming in and discussing(criticizing) the proposed changes was unprecedented.

I couldcareless about a forum on Battlenet just like any other offical forum based on there's always a small overreaction.  Btw some people try to turn anything into a problem because of the anonymiity that the Internet gives.

Fawx9 wrote... 

Simply put the changes made to the plans for Real ID, in under 3 days, was driven entirely by fan demand. 

If thats true then Real ID wouldn't be a primary part in Battlenet.

Fawx9 wrote... 

They weren't considered a negligable minority even though it was just posts on the forums. Blizzard listened to them and made changes. 

Small uproars come do from the minority especially when most of the Battlenet members didn't get bothered by the Real ID system.

Fawx9 wrote... 

I don't see why you are being so stubborn about admitting that fans on forums can, at times, be taken as a legitimate number of customers to base descisions on. 

I'm not being stubborn at all while its ironic when you're actualy the stubborn one.  If they were legitimate custmers then they would supply constructive criticism instead of petty insults directed at Blizzard.  This is nothing new and its time to move on.

Since there seems to be a communication problems I'm going to make it real simple.

- November 13, 2008: WoTLK release

- June 22, 2010: Patch 3.3.5, releasing Real ID to WoW in game

- July 6, 2010: Announcement that Real ID is coming to the forums and that user's real names will be used to identify posters

- July 6-9, 2010: Posts, blogs and websites criticize the idea, culminatiing in a single thread reaching 50K posts in less than 3 days

- July 9, 2010: Blizzard's president responds to the criticism, stating that after reviewing feedback that they will not go ahead with posters being identified by their real names

- July 27, 2010: SC2 releases with Real ID (my bad, for some reason I thought it was released late june)

Again I ask, if the internet is to be considered a negligable minority, why did Blizzard reverse it's stance and cite the posters as the reason for that reversal?

I'd like to take some time to speak with all of you regarding our desire
to make the Blizzard forums a better place for players to discuss our
games. We've been constantly monitoring the feedback you've given us, as
well as internally discussing your concerns about the use of real names
on our forums. As a result of those discussions, we've decided at this
time that real names will not be required for posting on official
Blizzard forums.

Reference

Modifié par Fawx9, 02 août 2012 - 04:06 .

[Jayleia]

Sajuro wrote...

iakus wrote...

And it's still the best ending of the lot.


And Bioware's confused why this wasn't well received?

Killed the Reapers, as TIM would say, EDI and the Geth knew the risks.

Yes, but it felt like me just murdering them.  If I could have talked to EDI and the Geth first, I'd have felt a LOT better about it, I was thinking about that conversation just this morning

Shepard:  EDI, I have the ability to destroy the Reapers...but it'll destroy all synthetic life, including you.
EDI:  Understood, Commander.  As I said before, this is to the death...its been an honor, Commander.

Shepard: I have the ability to destroy the Reapers...but it'll destroy all synthetic life, including the Geth.
Geth:  Consensus reached.  Reapers must be destroyed.

[MOELANDER]

Just wanted to throw this in. Contains Spoilers for Batman Arkham City




At the end of Arkham City the Joker dies, even when Batman would have given him the cure. Batman comes out and lays the Joker down on the hood of a policecar. While Jim Gordon and the rest of Gotham sure would be relieved to see their most feared psychopath dead, Batman is somber, because he couldn't save his life. He doesn't feel the victory.

Now why is that? It's because Bruce Wayne does not believe in the punishment of death and would rather see the Joker rot in a cell for the rest of his life, thinking of all the wrong he has done.
You as the player can feel with him, but the game still feels like a victory to you, even though your player character does not feel the same way.
The reason it worked there is because rocksteady stayed true to the character of Batman, while BioWare did not stay true to the theme of it's game series, which was about overcoming overwhelming odds.

Just what I thought about this.

Also Arkham City is way more diverse than ME3. Where did all those sidequests go?

[Baronesa]

MOELANDER wrote...

Just wanted to throw this in. Contains Spoilers for Batman Arkham City




At the end of Arkham City the Joker dies, even when Batman would have given him the cure. Batman comes out and lays the Joker down on the hood of a policecar. While Jim Gordon and the rest of Gotham sure would be relieved to see their most feared psychopath dead, Batman is somber, because he couldn't save his life. He doesn't feel the victory.

Now why is that? It's because Bruce Wayne does not believe in the punishment of death and would rather see the Joker rot in a cell for the rest of his life, thinking of all the wrong he has done.
You as the player can feel with him, but the game still feels like a victory to you, even though your player character does not feel the same way.
The reason it worked there is because rocksteady stayed true to the character of Batman, while BioWare did not stay true to the theme of it's game series, which was about overcoming overwhelming odds.

Just what I thought about this.

Also Arkham City is way more diverse than ME3. Where did all those sidequests go?

Hell, Arkham City is not even a RPG and has more diversity than ME3 -.-