342 réponses à ce sujet

[Jassu1979]

In a way, ME3's ending is similar to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:

You can tell what they aimed for (in the case of Indy, it was a shift from the pulp fiction of the 1930s to the pulp fiction of the 1950s), but it still ends in a collossal trainwreck.

(That said, I liked Indy 4 considerably more than ME3's ending.)

[Star fury]

greghorvath wrote...

I wouldn't call it a failure but they did overestimate the mental capacities of the fanbase. They should have given the mindless masses of drooling morons what their entitled little intelligence could handle. So I guess it is kind of a failure.

Bad trolling. 1 out of 100.

Modifié par Star fury, 23 août 2012 - 07:50 .

[Eterna]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

By failed I mean the fan backlash at a time when the  trilogy was suppose to be at it's apex it hit it's low point instead.

ME3 didn't need PTSD sequences, nihilism, an unbeatable foe, or transhuman nonsense, it just needed a conventional victory with a few varying end choices based on player morality. Nothing fancy but who cares? Stick with what works.

How dull and predictable. 

[Gogzilla]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

By failed I mean the fan backlash at a time when the  trilogy was suppose to be at it's apex it hit it's low point instead.

ME3 didn't need PTSD sequences, nihilism, an unbeatable foe, or transhuman nonsense, it just needed a conventional victory with a few varying end choices based on player morality. Nothing fancy but who cares? Stick with what works.

So what about the people who liked it, especially after the extended cut when a large number of people were satisfied ???

I actually want Bioware to continue to try differnt things otherwise they are just going to become a square enix or nintendo pumping out the same game every time

[Ksandor]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Maias227 wrote...

finalcabbage wrote...

I don't know if I would ever consider Mass Effect 3 a failure. Yeah, a bunch of Bioware's insane "fans", a term I use with no small amount of irony, besieged them with barely controlled frothing hatred. Yet, ME3 sold like gangbusters and the game is really awesome for the most part. What I'm saying is that Bioware's online fan base consists of the internet equivalent of a crazy dude living under a bridge that collects toenail clippings and yells at stay dogs about the evils of secret government mind control and the Illuminati.

Hilarious post. 

I disagree, there have been many analysis' on it. The only reason it sold so well is because EA probably spent more money on marketing then they did on the actual product.

The broader appeal they stamped on the game is evident in itself. From BioWare quotes of "This is a great place for newcomers" to in-game stuff like having London as the final battle area (London 2012).

Come on! Do you really believe that ME3 sold well?  It was on promo only 2 months after it was released. Please don't tell me you take official sales reports seriously.

Besides >

Electronic Arts For Sale? EA 'Quietly Exploring' Private Equity Interest: Report
http://www.ibtimes.c...-games-sale.htm

EA/Bioware executives love to use Kotaku to speak their mind anonymously. Last time one of them had said something like this: What if we make 100 games and screw 97 of them? The 3 games we sell will be our saving grace.

Well my dear executives it seems you were wrong. Screwing up 97 of your games to cut corners does not work. And they said that hundreds of superb game ideas come to them but they refuse to finance those game ideas because they would be expensive...

This is why they rushed and destroyed ME3. Hope EA's prospective masters will be more succesful. Who said that ordinary execs who are only concerned about their quarterly quota can make informed and sound desicisions? They did not care fans or customers. They said our sales chart market research data says that our games are good. Really?

Welcome to the boneyard!

Modifié par Ksandor, 23 août 2012 - 07:55 .

[Jadebaby]

Gogzilla wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

By failed I mean the fan backlash at a time when the  trilogy was suppose to be at it's apex it hit it's low point instead.

ME3 didn't need PTSD sequences, nihilism, an unbeatable foe, or transhuman nonsense, it just needed a conventional victory with a few varying end choices based on player morality. Nothing fancy but who cares? Stick with what works.

So what about the people who liked it, especially after the extended cut when a large number of people were satisfied ???

I actually want Bioware to continue to try differnt things otherwise they are just going to become a square enix or nintendo pumping out the same game every time

You don't have to crap on your own lore to "try something different" lol.

[greghorvath]

Star fury wrote...

greghorvath wrote...

I wouldn't call it a failure but they did overestimate the mental capacities of the fanbase. They should have given the mindless masses of drooling morons what their entitled little intelligence could handle. So I guess it is kind of a failure.

Bad trolling. 1 out of 100.

I thought it was quite poetic, actually.

[Ksandor]

greghorvath wrote...

Star fury wrote...

greghorvath wrote...

I wouldn't call it a failure but they did overestimate the mental capacities of the fanbase. They should have given the mindless masses of drooling morons what their entitled little intelligence could handle. So I guess it is kind of a failure.

Bad trolling. 1 out of 100.

I thought it was quite poetic, actually.

What poetry school did you say you went to? You don't mix your poetic tastes.

[greghorvath]

ELTE BTK, haver.

[Jassu1979]

You can tell an awful lot about the intelligence of a person who mistakes a pretentious failure for high art, basically parroting the PR-brochure.

"But it said in the commercial that this was the best thing ever!"

[greghorvath]

Jassu1979 wrote...

You can tell an awful lot about the intelligence of a person who mistakes a pretentious failure for high art, basically parroting the PR-brochure.

"But it said in the commercial that this was the best thing ever!"

Very true.

I am sure you will agree that not being able to cope with a different scenario than what was expected is also indicative of intelligence or a lack thereof.

[X086573]

yes. or... no?

[Ksandor]

greghorvath wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

You can tell an awful lot about the intelligence of a person who mistakes a pretentious failure for high art, basically parroting the PR-brochure.

"But it said in the commercial that this was the best thing ever!"

Very true.

I am sure you will agree that not being able to cope with a different scenario than what was expected is also indicative of intelligence or a lack thereof.

We just refuse bat taste and poor writing man. I don't have to cope with a different thing if it is not worth it. Besides this is beyond subjective view points, likes or dislikes. ME3 endings are below industry standart. I was not making fun of you. In United States there are undergraduate programs on how to write Western style novels. Ask the professors what they are thinking about introducing a totally new villain in the last pages of a novel out of blue. Just ask. It is an objective error. You do that and you will fail your essay exam in high school. Just like that.  

Modifié par Ksandor, 23 août 2012 - 08:34 .

[Gogzilla]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Gogzilla wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

By failed I mean the fan backlash at a time when the  trilogy was suppose to be at it's apex it hit it's low point instead.

ME3 didn't need PTSD sequences, nihilism, an unbeatable foe, or transhuman nonsense, it just needed a conventional victory with a few varying end choices based on player morality. Nothing fancy but who cares? Stick with what works.

So what about the people who liked it, especially after the extended cut when a large number of people were satisfied ???

I actually want Bioware to continue to try differnt things otherwise they are just going to become a square enix or nintendo pumping out the same game every time

You don't have to crap on your own lore to "try something different" lol.

I don't think they did, but people's expections on it( mine included) yhea.

I am not fan of this keep making games that follow the same formula.

I don't  want Mass Effect or DA to become like Final fantasy

[Fredvdp]

The problem is that ME3 is too different from the rest of the Mass Effect series in its design. I'm talking about how role-playing is handled with the dialog wheel and how Shepard often does not feel like your Shepard. The PTSD sequences are a good example. You are forced to feel certain emotions, even if your role-playing contradicts this. Even if you believe in the ruthless calculus of war, that one dead kid still has an effect on Shepard. You can argue that this one kid represents the many, but in that case I would have preferred to see Ashley/Kaidan instead.

Before ME3 came out, many people said they did not want a conventional victory because it would be too unrealistic and too much like Dragon Age, where you gather a big ass army and kill the dragon. I think many people now want a conventional victory because of the way BioWare wrote ME3's ending. A non-conventional victory could have worked, but the narrative wasn't handled well. The problem was that we only knew what the Crucible does at the very end of the game. If we knew sooner about the reason for the galactic extinction, then our hero could spend the game trying to prove the Reapers wrong. That would be a much clearer purpose. I think BioWare was going for mystery, but revealing vital information of the trilogy's plot till the very end bit them in the ass.

The Crucible plot itself could have been better if they hadn't decided to introduce it in ME3. It would have been better if the Alliance started working on it right after ME1. ME2 could have ended with Shepard looking out the Window seeing the Crucible under construction, like in Star Wars Episode III. That wouldn't make the concept of the Crucible any better, but it would make its construction more believable.

[Ksandor]

Fredvdp wrote...

The problem is that ME3 is too different from the rest of the Mass Effect series in its design. I'm talking about how role-playing is handled with the dialog wheel and how Shepard often does not feel like your Shepard. The PTSD sequences are a good example. You are forced to feel certain emotions, even if your role-playing contradicts this. Even if you believe in the ruthless calculus of war, that one dead kid still has an effect on Shepard. You can argue that this one kid represents the many, but in that case I would have preferred to see Ashley/Kaidan instead.

Before ME3 came out, many people said they did not want a conventional victory because it would be too unrealistic and too much like Dragon Age, where you gather a big ass army and kill the dragon. I think many people now want a conventional victory because of the way BioWare wrote ME3's ending. A non-conventional victory could have worked, but the narrative wasn't handled well. The problem was that we only knew what the Crucible does at the very end of the game. If we knew sooner about the reason for the galactic extinction, then our hero could spend the game trying to prove the Reapers wrong. That would be a much clearer purpose. I think BioWare was going for mystery, but revealing vital information of the trilogy's plot till the very end bit them in the ass.

The Crucible plot itself could have been better if they hadn't decided to introduce it in ME3. It would have been better if the Alliance started working on it right after ME1. ME2 could have ended with Shepard looking out the Window seeing the Crucible under construction, like in Star Wars Episode III. That wouldn't make the concept of the Crucible any better, but it would make its construction more believable.

To summarize: ME3 failed because it does not have a final boss fight. Period.

[StElmo]

greghorvath wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

You can tell an awful lot about the intelligence of a person who mistakes a pretentious failure for high art, basically parroting the PR-brochure.

"But it said in the commercial that this was the best thing ever!"

Very true.

I am sure you will agree that not being able to cope with a different scenario than what was expected is also indicative of intelligence or a lack thereof.

Many expectations were based on pre-release interviews, so that is also a valid complaint.

That said, it would only have been half the storm it was if the expectations were flipped on their heads for somethign that still maintained the secondary world of ME.

[liggy002]

Ksandor wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

The problem is that ME3 is too different from the rest of the Mass Effect series in its design. I'm talking about how role-playing is handled with the dialog wheel and how Shepard often does not feel like your Shepard. The PTSD sequences are a good example. You are forced to feel certain emotions, even if your role-playing contradicts this. Even if you believe in the ruthless calculus of war, that one dead kid still has an effect on Shepard. You can argue that this one kid represents the many, but in that case I would have preferred to see Ashley/Kaidan instead.

Before ME3 came out, many people said they did not want a conventional victory because it would be too unrealistic and too much like Dragon Age, where you gather a big ass army and kill the dragon. I think many people now want a conventional victory because of the way BioWare wrote ME3's ending. A non-conventional victory could have worked, but the narrative wasn't handled well. The problem was that we only knew what the Crucible does at the very end of the game. If we knew sooner about the reason for the galactic extinction, then our hero could spend the game trying to prove the Reapers wrong. That would be a much clearer purpose. I think BioWare was going for mystery, but revealing vital information of the trilogy's plot till the very end bit them in the ass.

The Crucible plot itself could have been better if they hadn't decided to introduce it in ME3. It would have been better if the Alliance started working on it right after ME1. ME2 could have ended with Shepard looking out the Window seeing the Crucible under construction, like in Star Wars Episode III. That wouldn't make the concept of the Crucible any better, but it would make its construction more believable.

To summarize: ME3 failed because it does not have a final boss fight. Period.

Yes, with a certain Reaper but that is certainly not the only reason why it failed though that was a contributing factor.

[liggy002]

They should have stuck with the same formula that they used in ME1 and ME2 for ME3. Beyond the trilogy, THAT is the time to start off fresh doing something new because the current story arc has ended. But, if you screw with the lore now, you risk pissing off many ME1 and ME2 fans. You can pretty much guess how that went down.

[jetfire118]

My kind of an ending would be. You unite everyone. Cure the genophage? Get the korgan, but lose salarian support, BUT! if you save the delatrass (think i spelled it right?) you get salarian support back.

Cure the genohpage? Korgan support for Palavan...get Turian support.
I have no idea how we can get Asair, i guess just talk to them? lol xD

This how the the final mission should've went. Aliens tell shepard they will be there shortly. But then Admiral Hackett tells shepard they cant wait and Human fleet goes first. And the space battle goes bad. But Shepard makes it to earth.  Earth mission is the same with addons. At the part with the missle defending when you are about to get surrounded a call comes in and Hackett says The alien united fleet is here. Space battle scene is cued and you see the reapers get ripped apart. The alien fleet send support for Earth. and the ground troops tear the reaper ground troops up. the cutscenes are basically your war assets. Like the mercs and stuff.

The beam run is the same but you fight harbinger. Based on War asstes is how you defeat him. If you have a lot of Assets Harbinger is deafeated with small loses. But if you have low assets you lose a lot. Same with the crucible. NO STAR CHILD instead based on your war assets the crucible is defended and you do all the open citidal arms and connects. So the anderson vs TIM is the same...TIM shoots you, then anderson shoots TIM but TIM shoots anderson before he dies...

So you and Anderson have the same sad moment and Anderson dies...and then shep gets up....and activates the crucible.....basically the scene where he presses the button to open the Arms...but instead replace the arms with the crucible. The end scene is cutscenes seeing everyone fighting....making last stands....then you see the crucible actrive and basically the Destroy ending. 

Joker contacts shep to see if hes alright and Normandy goes for him. Hacket gives that epic speech and you wake up in the med bay with everyone around you with your Lover crying. Normandy flys off and its Up to you what everyone did...

[ioannisdenton]

liggy002 wrote...

They just tried too hard with the ending and it simply didn't work.

.... if only.
they did not try at all i think. the original ending was very very embarassing. No closure , arbitrary events and nonsence all over the place.

[Ksandor]

liggy002 wrote...

Ksandor wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

The problem is that ME3 is too different from the rest of the Mass Effect series in its design. I'm talking about how role-playing is handled with the dialog wheel and how Shepard often does not feel like your Shepard. The PTSD sequences are a good example. You are forced to feel certain emotions, even if your role-playing contradicts this. Even if you believe in the ruthless calculus of war, that one dead kid still has an effect on Shepard. You can argue that this one kid represents the many, but in that case I would have preferred to see Ashley/Kaidan instead.

Before ME3 came out, many people said they did not want a conventional victory because it would be too unrealistic and too much like Dragon Age, where you gather a big ass army and kill the dragon. I think many people now want a conventional victory because of the way BioWare wrote ME3's ending. A non-conventional victory could have worked, but the narrative wasn't handled well. The problem was that we only knew what the Crucible does at the very end of the game. If we knew sooner about the reason for the galactic extinction, then our hero could spend the game trying to prove the Reapers wrong. That would be a much clearer purpose. I think BioWare was going for mystery, but revealing vital information of the trilogy's plot till the very end bit them in the ass.

The Crucible plot itself could have been better if they hadn't decided to introduce it in ME3. It would have been better if the Alliance started working on it right after ME1. ME2 could have ended with Shepard looking out the Window seeing the Crucible under construction, like in Star Wars Episode III. That wouldn't make the concept of the Crucible any better, but it would make its construction more believable.

To summarize: ME3 failed because it does not have a final boss fight. Period.

Yes, with a certain Reaper but that is certainly not the only reason why it failed though that was a contributing factor.

No unfortunately not. If they had done right at other aspects like good story telling and better Starbrat integration into the game it could have been much better.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Elephant Theory for the win.

[Monster20862]

I cared about the kid...

[jetfire118]

Monster20862 wrote...

I cared about the kid...

I did to....until i found out he was some space kid....