6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Lunch Box1912]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

This very forum speaks for itself, have you seen a comic con lately, people want this to game to be great, even if the ending was poor. Every store I walk into that sells video games if you ask the clerk about Mass Effect they either play it themselves and you end up talking about the game for 15minutes or they know all about it and about the ending debacle… the consumers are there. Just based off the numbers for registered online accounts it would turn a profit, this is what the Leviathan DLC is, Bioware has said themselves if the players will buy the content they will keep making it. If they didn’t think the consumer was going to buy it they would never had made Leviathan.
So again… you have thousands of people who are willing to pay for widgets and you refuse to manufacture widgets. WHY?

PAX East would be more accuate on the real fanbase while San Diego did draw in some of the "my way or the highway" group.  If you really want to be recognized then you should use honey instead of napalm.

?

[Dragoonlordz]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

First I am sure you have vast sways of proof destroy is the most popular? Care to share? Secondly it was established whether you personally think was poorly done or not. Thirdly the amount of work involved to produce such is vast and falls into the same problem of limitation of cost and time taken from one DLC someone else wants put into what you want, it is not something that can be tacked on another DLC. The amount of retcon, changes to the core game at multiple stages and all of this subject to the different individuals desire of how wished for such to happen. There are multiple suggestions and various methods people have concocted as to how they would handle such and they differ from person to person.

You can keep dreaming on this one element if wish but it is the one thing that will not happen.

I have a question, what would you say if Bioware did add-on to Destroy, refuse, or made Unconventional Victory happen?

I would say they went back on everything they have said past past few months. I would say they hanged Chris out to dry and did something to their own work colleague that is disgusting having had him say no new endings for months then to have him made out to be a liar is not acceptable way to treat their colleague or friend in that studio where they are all more than colleagues and are friends. I would then not buy it as it is not something I want, it goes against the story in ME3 and would invalidate all other choices due to throwing it all out of balance of consequence.

But none of these things I will have to do because it won't happen and your merely in denial about this despite then telling you themselves.

They have already done this to multiple PR-reps with the statements made prior to release.

If you think they are going to screw over Chris to please you and some others, you are wrong.

By all means keep believing whatever you want but it will remain belief and not implemented. Like I said Harbinger there is chance as with LI reunions that they might happen but your conventional / unconventional victory will not happen. It is the one thing that will not but by all means keep believing whatever you want.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:33 .

[AresKeith]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I would say they went back on everything they have said past past few months. I would say they hanged Chris out to dry and did something to their own work colleague that is disgusting having had him say no new endings for months then to have him made out to be a liar is not acceptable way to treat their colleague or friend in that studio where they are all more than colleagues and are friends. I would then not buy it as it is not something I want, it goes against the story in ME3 and would invalidate all other choices due to throwing it all out of balance of consequence.

part 2 of that question since it seems bend on bashing unconvential victory, what would you say if Bioware added on to Destroy or refuse, which isn't changing anything?

But none of these things I will have to do because it won't happen and your merely in denial about this despite them telling you themselves.

and nice way to sound like a d***bag

[Dragoonlordz]

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I would say they went back on everything they have said past past few months. I would say they hanged Chris out to dry and did something to their own work colleague that is disgusting having had him say no new endings for months then to have him made out to be a liar is not acceptable way to treat their colleague or friend in that studio where they are all more than colleagues and are friends. I would then not buy it as it is not something I want, it goes against the story in ME3 and would invalidate all other choices due to throwing it all out of balance of consequence.

part 2 of that question since it seems bend on bashing unconvential victory, what would you say if Bioware added on to Destroy or refuse, which isn't changing anything?

But none of these things I will have to do because it won't happen and your merely in denial about this despite them telling you themselves.

and nice way to sound like a d***bag

Firstly you need to specify what your talking about via examples and secondly I do not care what you think about me. If you think them telling you one thing and you ignoring it is not denial then by all means call me whatever you want.

[pgcis136]

Bioware's response is predictable, and continuing loss of story/RPG elements is inivitable.
Hear this Bioware, THIS HURTS YOU MORE THAN IT HURTS US. We are the consumers, and can be the harbingers of your acsencion or the vanguard of your destruction. For every one shooter player you gain through your "shooter elements" you lose a hundred once dedicated RPG consumers. Your continued resistance to the this truth is futile.
You have failed, we will find another way.
Releasing control of this thread.

[Lunch Box1912]

pgcis136 wrote...

Bioware's response is predictable, and continuing loss of story/RPG elements is inivitable.
Hear this Bioware, THIS HURTS YOU MORE THAN IT HURTS US. We are the consumers, and can be the harbingers of your acsencion or the vanguard of your destruction. For every one shooter player you gain through your "shooter elements" you lose a hundred once dedicated RPG consumers. Your continued resistance to the this truth is futile.
You have failed, we will find another way.
Releasing control of this thread.

Then the the cycle continues....  oh right ME2 collector base

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:44 .

[Epique Phael767]

Lunch Box1912 wrote...

pgcis136 wrote...

Bioware's response is predictable, and continuing loss of story/RPG elements is inivitable.
Hear this Bioware, THIS HURTS YOU MORE THAN IT HURTS US. We are the consumers, and can be the harbingers of your acsencion or the vanguard of your destruction. For every one shooter player you gain through your "shooter elements" you lose a hundred once dedicated RPG consumers. Your continued resistance to the this truth is futile.
You have failed, we will find another way.
Releasing control of this thread.

Then the the cycle continues....  oh right ME2 collector base

The rEApers continue to reap.

[Blueprotoss]

pgcis136 wrote...

Bioware's response is predictable, and continuing loss of story/RPG elements is inivitable.
Hear this Bioware, THIS HURTS YOU MORE THAN IT HURTS US. We are the consumers, and can be the harbingers of your acsencion or the vanguard of your destruction. For every one shooter player you gain through your "shooter elements" you lose a hundred once dedicated RPG consumers. Your continued resistance to the this truth is futile.
You have failed, we will find another way.
Releasing control of this thread.

There has always been small uproars in a Bioware game since Baldur's Gate 2.  There is also a smoke that gets put up when a small group of fans start a witch hunt, which ME3 is far from the only game this year to experience crazy amounts of rage.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 09 septembre 2012 - 04:50 .

[AresKeith]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I would say they went back on everything they have said past past few months. I would say they hanged Chris out to dry and did something to their own work colleague that is disgusting having had him say no new endings for months then to have him made out to be a liar is not acceptable way to treat their colleague or friend in that studio where they are all more than colleagues and are friends. I would then not buy it as it is not something I want, it goes against the story in ME3 and would invalidate all other choices due to throwing it all out of balance of consequence.

part 2 of that question since it seems bend on bashing unconvential victory, what would you say if Bioware added on to Destroy or refuse, which isn't changing anything?

Firstly you need to specify what your talking about via examples and secondly I do not care what you think about me. If you think them telling you one thing and you ignoring it is not denial then by all means call me whatever you want.

just answer the question here

Modifié par AresKeith, 09 septembre 2012 - 05:06 .

[Dragoonlordz]

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I would say they went back on everything they have said past past few months. I would say they hanged Chris out to dry and did something to their own work colleague that is disgusting having had him say no new endings for months then to have him made out to be a liar is not acceptable way to treat their colleague or friend in that studio where they are all more than colleagues and are friends. I would then not buy it as it is not something I want, it goes against the story in ME3 and would invalidate all other choices due to throwing it all out of balance of consequence.

part 2 of that question since it seems bend on bashing unconvential victory, what would you say if Bioware added on to Destroy or refuse, which isn't changing anything?

But none of these things I will have to do because it won't happen and your merely in denial about this despite them telling you themselves.

and nice way to sound like a d***bag

Firstly you need to specify what your talking about via examples and secondly I do not care what you think about me. If you think them telling you one thing and you ignoring it is not denial then by all means call me whatever you want.

just answer the question here

Ideally I would expect nothing added or changed in the ending, this is the ideal route to me because does not hang Chris out to dry at your expense. Destroying friendships at his work and treating a work colleague like dirt. Harbinger additional confrontation can be handled pre-ending before even arrive at Earth.

If ever they did change something despite this then the most reasonable and likely scenario would be Destroy in the game currently equals Shepard alive, adding a reunion to this does not change the ending. It is additonal not alterational of either the choices or the catalysts purpose. It does not urinate on the writers endings because the endings remain as were choice wise from when they created EC.The ending is the same in that he is alive pre-addition and alive post-addition and just an additional scene added. Refuse currently equals loss, so an additional scene of fleets being destroyed done in a emotional manner does not change the current ending choices and balance remains the same. This would be acceptable in this situation. It would not change the ending as the ending results in the same conclusion. Changing the choices, throwing the balance out the window is however changing the ending via alteration of the consequences and balance of the choices, this is not acceptable.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 septembre 2012 - 05:21 .

[Iakus]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ideally I would expect nothing added or changed in the ending, this is the ideal route to me because does not hang Chris out to dry at your expense. Destroying friendships at his work and treating a work colleague like dirt. Harbinger additional confrontation can be handled pre-ending before even arrive at Earth.

If ever they did change something despite this then the most reasonable and likely scenario would be Destroy in the game currently equals Shepard alive, adding a reunion to this does not change the ending. It is additonal not alterational of either the choices or the catalysts purpose. It does not urinate on the writers endings because the endings remain as were choice wise from when they created EC.The ending is the same in that he is alive pre-addition and alive post-addition and just an additional scene. Refuse currently equals loss, so an additional scene of fleets being destroyed done in a emotional manner does not change the current ending choices and balance remains the same. This would be acceptable to me. It would not change the ending as the ending results in the same conclusion. Changing the choices, throwing the balance out the window is however changing the ending via alteration of the consequences and balance of the choices, this is not acceptable.

That is acceptable to me.

I'd also like a heroic/dignified sendoff for EDI and the geth in Destroy, rather than them dying the Catalyst's hostages, but simple "Shepard confirmed to recover" and reunion would be closure enough for me.

[N7 Lisbeth]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I would say they went back on everything they have said past past few months. I would say they hanged Chris out to dry and did something to their own work colleague that is disgusting having had him say no new endings for months then to have him made out to be a liar is not acceptable way to treat their colleague or friend in that studio where they are all more than colleagues and are friends. I would then not buy it as it is not something I want, it goes against the story in ME3 and would invalidate all other choices due to throwing it all out of balance of consequence.

part 2 of that question since it seems bend on bashing unconvential victory, what would you say if Bioware added on to Destroy or refuse, which isn't changing anything?

But none of these things I will have to do because it won't happen and your merely in denial about this despite them telling you themselves.

and nice way to sound like a d***bag

Firstly you need to specify what your talking about via examples and secondly I do not care what you think about me. If you think them telling you one thing and you ignoring it is not denial then by all means call me whatever you want.

just answer the question here

Ideally I would expect nothing added or changed in the ending, this is the ideal route to me because does not hang Chris out to dry at your expense. Destroying friendships at his work and treating a work colleague like dirt. Harbinger additional confrontation can be handled pre-ending before even arrive at Earth.

If ever they did change something despite this then the most reasonable and likely scenario would be Destroy in the game currently equals Shepard alive, adding a reunion to this does not change the ending. It is additonal not alterational of either the choices or the catalysts purpose. It does not urinate on the writers endings because the endings remain as were choice wise from when they created EC.The ending is the same in that he is alive pre-addition and alive post-addition and just an additional scene added. Refuse currently equals loss, so an additional scene of fleets being destroyed done in a emotional manner does not change the current ending choices and balance remains the same. This would be acceptable in this situation. It would not change the ending as the ending results in the same conclusion. Changing the choices, throwing the balance out the window is however changing the ending via alteration of the consequences and balance of the choices, this is not acceptable.

The endings suck, get over it. The writer has, and if they can't handle criticism, they shouldn't be writing. The endings need to be changed, added to by way of war assets altering the outcome, or something to properly add closure (reunion and Shepard contributing to rebuilding the galaxy  in Destroy, rebuilding in Control, and of course Synthesis gets the short stick because it was painted into a corner and stomped on).

Trying to protect some writer by mothballing a whole franchise, virtually strangling all DLC to uselessness, and alienating a huge fanbase is a terrible, terrible business strategem.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 09 septembre 2012 - 05:56 .

[Epique Phael767]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I would say they went back on everything they have said past past few months. I would say they hanged Chris out to dry and did something to their own work colleague that is disgusting having had him say no new endings for months then to have him made out to be a liar is not acceptable way to treat their colleague or friend in that studio where they are all more than colleagues and are friends. I would then not buy it as it is not something I want, it goes against the story in ME3 and would invalidate all other choices due to throwing it all out of balance of consequence.

part 2 of that question since it seems bend on bashing unconvential victory, what would you say if Bioware added on to Destroy or refuse, which isn't changing anything?

But none of these things I will have to do because it won't happen and your merely in denial about this despite them telling you themselves.

and nice way to sound like a d***bag

Firstly you need to specify what your talking about via examples and secondly I do not care what you think about me. If you think them telling you one thing and you ignoring it is not denial then by all means call me whatever you want.

just answer the question here

Ideally I would expect nothing added or changed in the ending, this is the ideal route to me because does not hang Chris out to dry at your expense. Destroying friendships at his work and treating a work colleague like dirt. Harbinger additional confrontation can be handled pre-ending before even arrive at Earth.

If ever they did change something despite this then the most reasonable and likely scenario would be Destroy in the game currently equals Shepard alive, adding a reunion to this does not change the ending. It is additonal not alterational of either the choices or the catalysts purpose. It does not urinate on the writers endings because the endings remain as were choice wise from when they created EC.The ending is the same in that he is alive pre-addition and alive post-addition and just an additional scene added. Refuse currently equals loss, so an additional scene of fleets being destroyed done in a emotional manner does not change the current ending choices and balance remains the same. This would be acceptable in this situation. It would not change the ending as the ending results in the same conclusion. Changing the choices, throwing the balance out the window is however changing the ending via alteration of the consequences and balance of the choices, this is not acceptable.

The endings suck, get over it. The writer has, and if they can't handle criticism, they shouldn't be writing. The endings need to be changed, added to by way of war assets altering the outcome, etc.

Trying to protect some writer by mothballing a whole franchise, virtually strangling all DLC to uselessness, and alienating a huge fanbase is a terrible, terrible business strategem.

They stopped caring about business when they called their endings "art" IMO.

[Zan51]

Fiannawolf wrote...

*eyes fridge* There is some cake in there right now.....and I have coffee downstairs.

@Redbelle: yes, I do believe we need delicious existance cake now. Like poor Chell we are trapped by a strange AI with perchance for slaughter....in that kid's case its the whole galaxy though....pity.

@iakus: YAY! My lone candle is burning abit brighter...maybe if we get all our flames together it will light a wonderful path thru the darkness eh?

^ This! Can I join you for cake? I'll bring coffee or something stronger! Let's have a party because that was a great post you did a couple up from where i quoted!

[Zan51]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Seival wrote...
If you can't make a really tough choice even in a game, then ME Trilogy is just not for you.

Hmmm... **** over the galaxy in three different versions in a painfully contrived fashion.

I agree, if those are the kind of "tough" choices I have to make in a game, then the ME3 trilogy definitely isn't for me.

A real tough choice would be something like Virmire or the Collector Base.

Yes! Oh, yes, that is a real choice, I hate the traffic lights one, all "choices" suck.

Sorry for late reply, just back from work! 11 pm here.

[Applepie_Svk]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I would say they went back on everything they have said past past few months.

They have already done this to multiple PR-reps with the statements made prior to release.

Are you even serious ? If this is not trolling than you are being blind or ignorant...

They lied multiple times since first interview year ago....

[Applepie_Svk]

Seival wrote...

Writers, who rewrite the endings of their stories after release are not good writers. And fans, who insist on rewriting are not good fans. I'm glad BioWare understand that.

If you think that you can make better endings, open your own game development company and produce your own RPGs. But when you consume someone else's game, don't try to teach the devs how to make games. Just accept the game or leave.

They did it with EC... what a magic:wizard:

Best way is to throw a guilt on side of fans, isn it ? You didn´t like the old endings because you were missing closure-slideshow and less destructive ending(you know relays...) but with EC you get all what you want and right now you are going to teach us what is right and what´s wrong. Gratulation sir, this is master degree of hypocrisy...

This is not how you are making a bussiness, they lied on multiple occassions and via lies they have secured a big numbers of pre-orders, it´s not how you care with PR and Fanbase - to saying your customer ""Well you paid and didn´t like it? You are free to leave, but without money which we took from you..."

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 09 septembre 2012 - 06:28 .

[StElmo]

[quote]Seival wrote...

Writers, who rewrite the endings of their stories after release are not good writers. And fans, who insist on rewriting are not good fans. I'm glad BioWare understand that.

If you think that you can make better endings, open your own game development company and produce your own RPGs. But when you consume someone else's game, don't try to teach the devs how to make games. Just accept the game or leave.[/quote]

[/quote]

That is a fallacy. If writers never re-wrote their released work, Tolkiens hobbit would never make sense as a prequel to lord of the rings. Tolkien is also an excellent writer.

Thanks.

[Zan51]

Sherlock Holmes was killed off then brought back after a great deal of popular demand.
Look, it is simple. MOST good works of fiction go through a process called Editing that gets everything straight. The Editors all have a copy of the bible for the book - the who met whom where, how each person looks, their speech patterns, the works so that it stays consistent in the book or series. Good writers also have a Bible!

I say editing process, there are several. Line Editors and Copy Editors and the Main Editor that keeps an eye on the overall arc of the story.
Continuity must be correct. Can't have one character with a rucksack in one scene as he goes out door to get in a taxi and not have it in the taxi without an explanation as to where it went!
Grammar has to be right, you know, spelling, punctuation, sentences that make sense that kinda thing.

So after all these filters, the book should be good. ME3 apparently at the end went through very little of this apart from the top 2 folk shutting everyone else out and going it alone, and they are not writers, or known good SF writers with a track record.

As an aside, once there was an SF series in the UK called Space 1999, went out in 1975 - 1976, only did 2 series. Why? Well you see, it was a story about the moon base on the moon and what happened when the moon was bounced out of its orbit round earth to travel through space willy nilly.
"In the opening episode, nuclear waste from Earth stored on the Moon's far side explodes in a catastrophic accident on 13 September 1999, knocking the Moon out of orbit and sending it and the 311 inhabitants of Moonbase Alpha hurtling uncontrollably into space."
It was about how the inhabitants of the moon base were going to survive, you know, stuff like where to get more fuel for their shuttles to go down to new planets they passed to get fresh food from them... the usual things!
It was done by Gerry and Sylvia Anderson and there were a pair who almost always had good ideas that just failed.... Space 1999 ratings dropped after series 1, cast got fired and it was not explained int he series, Sylvia and GGerry split.

Finally they tried to get a real SF Writer to write the series for them and dig them out of failure. I was at a British Easter SF Con when I believe it was Harry Harrison (RIP, Harry! We will miss you.) was going on about how he had turned the studio down. Every one turned them down! Why? Because the basic premise of the whole series was flawed and wrong, It could not be saved because at its most simplest, Coriolis force would have flung Moon Base Alpha and all the inhabitants off it as soon as it went out of orbit. So there was no story, period, And no real SF writer wanted to be associated with that series.

So editing and sticking to known dependable science matters. You don't do it right, you fail.

Modifié par Zan51, 09 septembre 2012 - 07:05 .

[Zero132132]

@Zan51
Dependable science? That doesn't appear at any point in Mass Effect. Mass effect fields are supposedly created through the application of an electrical current through element zero. The codex says this:

"Element zero can increase or decrease the mass of volume of space-time when subjected to an electrical current. With a positive current, mass is increased. With a negative current, mass is decreased. The stronger the current, the greater the magnitude of the dark energy mass effect."

There's no such thing as positive or negative current. We label things as positive and negative, but in all cases, electrons flow from the negatively charged region to a positively charged region. Beyond the hand-wavey bull**** of being able to alter the mass of something with a magical new element, they've stated something that's physically meaningless as a motivating force behind the mass relays, biotics, FTL travel, mass effect fields, and basically every damned thing in the game.

It NEVER was even remotely scientific. People that don't see that just didn't bother to look until the game was over.

Modifié par Zero132132, 09 septembre 2012 - 07:31 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Seival wrote...

Writers, who rewrite the endings of their stories after release are not good writers. And fans, who insist on rewriting are not good fans. I'm glad BioWare understand that.

If you think that you can make better endings, open your own game development company and produce your own RPGs. But when you consume someone else's game, don't try to teach the devs how to make games. Just accept the game or leave.

I believe the irony of your stance here was already pointed out: the origin of your flashy avatar was the result of people rallying for just that: a rewrite, a change of the original ending given. And let us face it: the Director's Cut is dramatically different from what was originally served. That merely the Relay's core was affected in that just had me laughing out loud hysterically when I witnessed it first time around.

And Mass Effect 3, being the video game that it is, is a different medium altogether in so far as content is continuously added to it in the form of DLC for a while yet. As such, I see nothing wrong with said DLC offering more substantial "change" in nuances or even surpassing that to certain options of the finale.

Bioware can only gain from this, profit- and reputation-wise*. And as I said before: as is, the ending is akin to the rebirth of the Water Dragon in Jade Empire destroying the Imperial City no matter what. I cannot recall anyone being upset that such a hook was not added in that game, truth be told, and it was made by the very same company...

*PS: I realise some may point out how selling a "proper" ending in portions is a rather shady thing to do, to say the least. Something that has already happened in the industry anyhow, however, and as such, I do not truly see the moral predicament with that.

EC didn't change the endings at all. The endings were just explained in more details.

Yes, BioWare could gain a lot of profit by changing the endings. But instead they showed us they care about the ideas more than about the money.

When we pause to consider that change involves an alteration, in some way or form, that differs from the established pattern that was previously there, then we are forced to accept that the endings were indeed changed. Altered. Transformed and rolled out, (sry, been watching TF:P).

I'm not going to debate the why, as judging BW through it's officially released statements is a tricky business that often relies on reading between the lines and I'm more interested in events atm.

So here is a fact that even the pro enders cannot argue against. As previously pointed out, BW did change the ending.

What do we mean by change however? (something I posted about previously)

BW did not rip up the old endings, they added to them. However, arguing that adding more detail isn't changing is splitting hairs. Changes were made by the inclusion of the additions. It was changed in the EC:DLC and it was changed in Leviathan by the incorporation of additional scenes and, in Lev's case more dialogue. It's not what BW started out with their initial release so on the matter of 'should BW change the ending', the matter is closed. BW have changed the endings. And if Lev is any indication, BW, to better reflect new content, always intended to have the end events changable. Period.

The real debate therefore, the one that has not been closed off by BW decisions. Is this.     How far should BW go in changing their endings? We probably haven't seen the last SP DLC and previous SP DLC's have proven that the game engine is fully capable of changing how events play out and what dialogue options are available.

I remember one pro ender who railed at the hold the line movement and said that the original ending should not be altered but here we are post ECDLC and I have yet to hear a majority pro ender backlash against the ECDLC or Leviathan. It seems to me that pro enders are open to the possibility of changes being made, both near the ending and earlier in game as I have yet to find a thread that actively campaigns against the EC:DLC the way the hold the line movement campaigned for a change to the ending.

Anyway, if previous timelines for supporting MEDLC content is anything to go by we have over 3 more months of DLC content before BW pull the plug. Unless they decide to extend. All that DLC that could yet again change the in game content by virtue of the fact that it was not present in game at the time of release. Maybe even the retaking of Omega that Aria was griping about on the Citadel.

Modifié par Redbelle, 09 septembre 2012 - 08:29 .

[Archonsg]

It is unfortunate that 3D's thread has kinda boiled down to one side saying, "Please ADD TO the endings, give us the options that were missing." and another side saying "No, don't CHANGE anything!"

The fact is, nothing will be "changed" for those who love what they have now. You don't have to play towards the ending you DON'T want. Whereas, those of us who are asking for an addition, are asking for something we don't have yet.

As for "art", and the assertion that a "good" ending would make it too "Hollywood", again, you have your "art", nothing is changed, stick to it and don't buy / download / play for the "Hollywood" ending.

At this point of time, even though I have heard some good things about Leviathan, I have no interest in buying it. Simply because the end of the journey, still matters to me. Just making the journey itself better won't change that I still get punched in the nose at the end.

[Applepie_Svk]

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

EC didn't change the endings at all. The endings were just explained in more details.

Yes, BioWare could gain a lot of profit by changing the endings. But instead they showed us they care about the ideas more than about the money.

When we pause to consider that change involves an alteration, in some way or form, that differs from the established pattern that was previously there, then we are forced to accept that the endings were indeed changed. Altered. Transformed and rolled out, (sry, been watching TF:P).

I'm not going to debate the why, as judging BW through it's officially released statements is a tricky business that often relies on reading between the lines and I'm more interested in events atm.

So here is a fact that even the pro enders cannot argue against. As previously pointed out, BW did change the ending.

What do we mean by change however? (something I posted about previously)

BW did not rip up the old endings, they added to them. However, arguing that adding more detail isn't changing is splitting hairs. Changes were made by the inclusion of the additions. It was changed in the EC:DLC and it was changed in Leviathan by the incorporation of additional scenes and, in Lev's case more dialogue. It's not what BW started out with their initial release so on the matter of 'should BW change the ending', the matter is closed. BW have changed the endings. And if Lev is any indication, BW, to better reflect new content, always intended to have the end events changable. Period.

The real debate therefore, the one that has not been closed off by BW decisions. Is this.     How far should BW go in changing their endings? We probably haven't seen the last SP DLC and previous SP DLC's have proven that the game engine is fully capable of changing how events play out and what dialogue options are available.

I remember one pro ender who railed at the hold the line movement and said that the original ending should not be altered but here we are post ECDLC and I have yet to hear a majority pro ender backlash against the ECDLC or Leviathan. It seems to me that pro enders are open to the possibility of changes being made, both near the ending and earlier in game as I have yet to find a thread that actively campaigns against the EC:DLC the way the hold the line movement campaigned for a change to the ending.

Anyway, if previous timelines for supporting MEDLC content is anything to go by we have over 3 more months of DLC content before BW pull the plug. Unless they decide to extend. All that DLC that could yet again change the in game content by virtue of the fact that it was not present in game at the time of release. Maybe even the retaking of Omega that Aria was griping about on the Citadel.

They made a retcon, they lied about that they won´t add new ending -
retcon - 
OC- Relays will be destroyed (for sure - EC scene showed how Relays falling apart from explosion, also they did retcon with explosion of relay which caused in th Arrival devastation of whole system without single explanation til you start headcanon your own explanation)
(Catalyst was simply unkown being)
(Crew on Normady via magical teleport)

EC- Relays will be damaged or destroyed ( depends on EMS)
(Catalyst is an AI)
(Crew on Normandy via most far-fetched scene in the entire trilogy)

Refuse ending - I didn´t even need to describe what´s wrong here, despite that first time Shepard acting like good old Shepard...

Leviathan should be included in game since day1 because it has strong ties with the core of the problem and plot of Reapers. I think that in some next DLC we will find another answers for pressence of Crucible or Keepers which will trying to justify presence of Catalyst as actually does Leviathan, it´s simply said unfinished product.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 09 septembre 2012 - 09:31 .

[Seival]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Seival wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Seival wrote...

Writers, who rewrite the endings of their stories after release are not good writers. And fans, who insist on rewriting are not good fans. I'm glad BioWare understand that.

If you think that you can make better endings, open your own game development company and produce your own RPGs. But when you consume someone else's game, don't try to teach the devs how to make games. Just accept the game or leave.

I believe the irony of your stance here was already pointed out: the origin of your flashy avatar was the result of people rallying for just that: a rewrite, a change of the original ending given. And let us face it: the Director's Cut is dramatically different from what was originally served. That merely the Relay's core was affected in that just had me laughing out loud hysterically when I witnessed it first time around.

And Mass Effect 3, being the video game that it is, is a different medium altogether in so far as content is continuously added to it in the form of DLC for a while yet. As such, I see nothing wrong with said DLC offering more substantial "change" in nuances or even surpassing that to certain options of the finale.

Bioware can only gain from this, profit- and reputation-wise*. And as I said before: as is, the ending is akin to the rebirth of the Water Dragon in Jade Empire destroying the Imperial City no matter what. I cannot recall anyone being upset that such a hook was not added in that game, truth be told, and it was made by the very same company...

*PS: I realise some may point out how selling a "proper" ending in portions is a rather shady thing to do, to say the least. Something that has already happened in the industry anyhow, however, and as such, I do not truly see the moral predicament with that.

EC didn't change the endings at all. The endings were just explained in more details.

Yes, BioWare could gain a lot of profit by changing the endings. But instead they showed us they care about the ideas more than about the money.

Did you miss the refuse ending?  Did you miss the Normandy scene (you know your certain to be relay crash test that wasn't that at all)?  Did you miss the relay retcon?  I guess some changes just went unnoticed.

And again, how is my suggesting anything hurting you and what you now have if you would never have to see it?  The art you have would stand as it is.

Refuse ending was made to avoid infinite wandering around the Catalyst chamber in case you don't like the other endings. This is called "bug-fix", not an "ending change".

Normandy crash scene was just explained. Explained much better than I expected, actually.

Original Relays' explosion looked too unclear (especially in case of Control), so they just made the explosion scene easier to understand.

In other words - there were no changes, there were only explanations. If you think those were changes, then you just didn't understand the original endings.



...As I said for an example, one of your suggestions ruins the idea of not giving player any ideal ending. And this is completely unacceptable.

Modifié par Seival, 09 septembre 2012 - 11:39 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Seival wrote...


Refuse ending was made to avoid infinite wandering around the Catalyst chamber in case you don't like the other endings. This is called "bug-fix", not an "ending change".

Normandy crash scene was just explained. Explained much better than I expected, actually.

Original Relays' explosion looked too unclear (especially in case of Control), so they just made the explosion scene easier to understand.

In other words - there were no changes, there were only explanations. If you think those were changes, then you just didn't understand the original endings.



...As I said for an example, one of your suggestions ruins the idea of not giving player any ideal ending. And this is completely unacceptable.

Where are you buying that stuff ? I would like too a little bit of that...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 09 septembre 2012 - 02:56 .