6432 réponses à ce sujet

[N7_Paragon2077]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

There are many reasons to disagree. From where time and money is best spent for individuals enjoyment, where the line in the sand is drawn between trying to please those remaining unhappy and those who are now okay or happy. The themes of the game and the rights of the developer to make the game they wish vs make the game you wish to play. The balance between the current endings and destroying the balance of difficulty in choices, the result of what some changes would have on the game between intentionally trying to invalidate other choices by proxy -having a more linear option which makes the other ones pointless therefore being detrimental to player choice not increasing it.

That is just a few of the reasons and there are many more dependant on what those who hate the ending have been asking for which includes the blue babies, conventional victory being basically refuse = win situation and much more like Harbinger fight. The reality is Bioware cannot cater to everyone's tastes as this product was designed for mass production among many with different desires of what they want and not designed to individual user specifications. They have said where they have drawn that line in the sand already and some people having no respect for the right of a creator to decide what he or she creates does not change this.

Enough people remain unhappy that I'd wager it'd still be profitable for them to actually do this. To the people that actually like it, that is fine. Nobody is against you. The people that are unhappy would jump on this in a heartbeat. Maybe the people that are okay could go either way, maybe some gave up cause of EC, maybe some gave up cause of lack of hope. Who knows? But the way I see it, most people do want this, and they wouldn't mind if it didn't come right away, just so long as they know it's coming. You guys can have all your other paid DLC that you want. Maybe this can be the last thing BW does for Mass Effect 3, so when all is said and done, everyone is happy.

I wouldn't say that adding an ending where you actually get to feel like a hero makes all the other choices obsolete. It seems like some people are ok with the other endings, so why would they choose otherwise if they are content. Also, I disagree about that type of ending going against the type of game the developers are trying to make. Look at Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. Those are heroic endings, and nobody complains about those now. They love them.

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Want to know the reason a couple of posters gave for not wanting it?  Too many people would choose it.  Seriously.

People would choose th eending they want.  The horror!

[Xellith]

Is this accurate? Because this is the message thats coming through to me from reading the last few pages from some people

[Dragoonlordz]

N7_Paragon2077 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

There are many reasons to disagree. From where time and money is best spent for individuals enjoyment, where the line in the sand is drawn between trying to please those remaining unhappy and those who are now okay or happy. The themes of the game and the rights of the developer to make the game they wish vs make the game you wish to play. The balance between the current endings and destroying the balance of difficulty in choices, the result of what some changes would have on the game between intentionally trying to invalidate other choices by proxy -having a more linear option which makes the other ones pointless therefore being detrimental to player choice not increasing it.

That is just a few of the reasons and there are many more dependant on what those who hate the ending have been asking for which includes the blue babies, conventional victory being basically refuse = win situation and much more like Harbinger fight. The reality is Bioware cannot cater to everyone's tastes as this product was designed for mass production among many with different desires of what they want and not designed to individual user specifications. They have said where they have drawn that line in the sand already and some people having no respect for the right of a creator to decide what he or she creates does not change this.

Enough people remain unhappy that I'd wager it'd still be profitable for them to actually do this. To the people that actually like it, that is fine. Nobody is against you. The people that are unhappy would jump on this in a heartbeat. Maybe the people that are okay could go either way, maybe some gave up cause of EC, maybe some gave up cause of lack of hope. Who knows? But the way I see it, most people do want this, and they wouldn't mind if it didn't come right away, just so long as they know it's coming. You guys can have all your other paid DLC that you want. Maybe this can be the last thing BW does for Mass Effect 3, so when all is said and done, everyone is happy.

I wouldn't say that adding an ending where you actually get to feel like a hero makes all the other choices obsolete. It seems like some people are ok with the other endings, so why would they choose otherwise if they are content. Also, I disagree about that type of ending going against the type of game the developers are trying to make. Look at Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. Those are heroic endings, and nobody complains about those now. They love them.

The hero surviviing was never mean't to be a theme of ME. It was nothing more than a requirement to reach the trilogy aspect. The trilogy being Shepards part in the war across three games. They even went so far as to show you that he shouldn't always win the day by having the fact he can die in ME2. If wasn't for being a trilogy he would probably already have been killed off in ME2 with no surviving option in that title. They let him survive because this series was always mean't to be Shepards part in the war spanning three games. Not four and not forever.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 septembre 2012 - 12:00 .

[3DandBeyond]

N7_Paragon2077 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

There are many reasons to disagree. From where time and money is best spent for individuals enjoyment, where the line in the sand is drawn between trying to please those remaining unhappy and those who are now okay or happy. The themes of the game and the rights of the developer to make the game they wish vs make the game you wish to play. The balance between the current endings and destroying the balance of difficulty in choices, the result of what some changes would have on the game between intentionally trying to invalidate other choices by proxy -having a more linear option which makes the other ones pointless therefore being detrimental to player choice not increasing it.

That is just a few of the reasons and there are many more dependant on what those who hate the ending have been asking for which includes the blue babies, conventional victory being basically refuse = win situation and much more like Harbinger fight. The reality is Bioware cannot cater to everyone's tastes as this product was designed for mass production among many with different desires of what they want and not designed to individual user specifications. They have said where they have drawn that line in the sand already and some people having no respect for the right of a creator to decide what he or she creates does not change this.

Enough people remain unhappy that I'd wager it'd still be profitable for them to actually do this. To the people that actually like it, that is fine. Nobody is against you. The people that are unhappy would jump on this in a heartbeat. Maybe the people that are okay could go either way, maybe some gave up cause of EC, maybe some gave up cause of lack of hope. Who knows? But the way I see it, most people do want this, and they wouldn't mind if it didn't come right away, just so long as they know it's coming. You guys can have all your other paid DLC that you want. Maybe this can be the last thing BW does for Mass Effect 3, so when all is said and done, everyone is happy.

I wouldn't say that adding an ending where you actually get to feel like a hero makes all the other choices obsolete. It seems like some people are ok with the other endings, so why would they choose otherwise if they are content. Also, I disagree about that type of ending going against the type of game the developers are trying to make. Look at Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. Those are heroic endings, and nobody complains about those now. They love them.

The funny thing is, if I had an ending I liked, I might be more likely to play the other ones from time to time, even if only to remind me why I don't like them.

And I agree, I'm not against anyone having those endings if they like them.  All I am looking for is a way to rehabilitate 3 games I have (well I have 6 of them - ME1-3 on the xbox and ME1 on PC and 2-3 on PS3).  I have Infiltrator and Redemption and the Final Hours App.  I want to enjoy something I really liked once again.  And I want to be here begging BW for other DLC and even new games.  In short I'm asking them to help me find a way to want to give them my money again by helping me like their games again.

I don't want to take anything away from anyone else at all.

[Moirai]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Moirai wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I find it amusing that if wasn't for me, dre and others who disagree with the OP this thread would be like a mere 5-10 page long instead of 60 and a dozen pages away from the front page on this section of the forums if exclude shameless bumping being possible. Thats just because of how few in number have posted in agreement through the thread.

Feel free to thank us for keeping your thread alive. >

To be honest few have posted against the OP in actuality. It just seems to be the same ones over and over and over again with something approaching an almost relegious zeal.

Maybe you guys should get a hobby. Play some games, kick back and relax. You know, that sort of thing...

What are you talking about? What relevence does how many have been counter debating the proposal from the OP in the content of the thread have to do with what I said? It does not change the fact without those who disagree posting in here, the thread would not be on the front page with more likely few pages back and it would be a vast fraction of pages currently is. The amount of people posting in agreement is as small as the amount you claim post in opposition but none of that changes what would happen if those who have not discussed with an opinion different to the OP in here. The amount who agree will still be small in number, the thread would still be small in amount of pages and the thread would more likely be not on the front page anymore.

It is interesting your assumption that those who held a different view and posted in here often are borderline zealots who have nothing else they are doing right now. Fact, while discussing in this thread I have been discussing in many others at same time, fact while discussing in this thread I have actually played other games, slept, eaten, done my real life work and chatted with other people outside these forums about things that are not ME or Bioware related. Now.. Maybe you can only do one thing at a time but let me assure you that is not the case with everyone else here.

My comment wasn't so much arguing against the point you made. It was more a lighthearted response to the conceited arrogance displayed within your post.

But anyway, thanks for finishing your thread bump with an attempted insult. Made me chuckle...

[N7_Paragon2077]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The hero suviviing was never mean't to be a theme of ME. It was nothing more than a requirement to reach the trilogy aspect. The trilogy being Shepards part in the war across three games. They even went so far as to show you that he shouldn't always win the day by having the fact he can die in ME2. If wasn't for being a trilogy he would probably already have been killed off in ME2 with no surviving option in that title. They let him survive because this series was always mean't to be Shepards part in the war spanning three games. Not four and not forever.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is Shepard is amazing at pulling off the impossible, and living to see another day. Shepard killed Sovereign, big finale with Shepard rising through the rubble and running back to the squad with a smile and some awesome music. Shepard dies in ME2, and he comes back ready to go. Even in the Suicide Mission, you do everything right then everyone survives and the Normandy escapes the explosion to the epic soundtrack. Sure, you can die, but it's obviously not canon. For me, that's a recurring theme. You can always perform the impossible. We don't have to look at it the same way, we don't have to pick the same endings, but your way is not the only way to see it. That is perfectly fine if you want your Shepard dead though, no arguments from me there.

[Dragoonlordz]

Moirai wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Moirai wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I find it amusing that if wasn't for me, dre and others who disagree with the OP this thread would be like a mere 5-10 page long instead of 60 and a dozen pages away from the front page on this section of the forums if exclude shameless bumping being possible. Thats just because of how few in number have posted in agreement through the thread.

Feel free to thank us for keeping your thread alive. >

To be honest few have posted against the OP in actuality. It just seems to be the same ones over and over and over again with something approaching an almost relegious zeal.

Maybe you guys should get a hobby. Play some games, kick back and relax. You know, that sort of thing...

What are you talking about? What relevence does how many have been counter debating the proposal from the OP in the content of the thread have to do with what I said? It does not change the fact without those who disagree posting in here, the thread would not be on the front page with more likely few pages back and it would be a vast fraction of pages currently is. The amount of people posting in agreement is as small as the amount you claim post in opposition but none of that changes what would happen if those who have not discussed with an opinion different to the OP in here. The amount who agree will still be small in number, the thread would still be small in amount of pages and the thread would more likely be not on the front page anymore.

It is interesting your assumption that those who held a different view and posted in here often are borderline zealots who have nothing else they are doing right now. Fact, while discussing in this thread I have been discussing in many others at same time, fact while discussing in this thread I have actually played other games, slept, eaten, done my real life work and chatted with other people outside these forums about things that are not ME or Bioware related. Now.. Maybe you can only do one thing at a time but let me assure you that is not the case with everyone else here.

My comment wasn't so much arguing against the point you made. It was more a lighthearted response to the conceited arrogance displayed within your post.

But anyway, thanks for finishing your thread bump with an attempted insult. Made me chuckle...

Funny thing about words on a screen, they are open to interpretation. What you assume was behind the words does not mean was actually intended or even expressed in a way a personal bias against the point will infer behind it. You claim your comment was lighthearted, to me it was insulting. To you my comment was insulting but expressed by me in a lighthearted way as far as I am concerned (including a nice smiley face to further show this).

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 septembre 2012 - 12:11 .

[3DandBeyond]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

The hero suviviing was never mean't to be a theme of ME. It was nothing more than a requirement to reach the trilogy aspect. The trilogy being Shepards part in the war across three games. They even went so far as to show you that he shouldn't always win the day by having the fact he can die in ME2. If wasn't for being a trilogy he would probably already have been killed off in ME2 with no surviving option in that title. They let him survive because this series was always mean't to be Shepards part in the war spanning three games. Not four and not forever.

No one here is asking for Shepard's story to continue on forever past what they have determined that they want-we could, but that isn't the point of this thread.  It's to create an acceptable conclusion for Shepard, the player's avatar in the game.  Sure, I think it would be great, but I'm not asking for that here.  I want this story concluded in a way that works for me-I am not demanding it, I am asking them to think about it.

So, they showed you Shepard could die in ME2-they also showed that Shepard could live.  They even brought Shepard back to life, so that doesn't go along with the idea they never meant to have the "hero survives" be a part of ME's theme-it was a huge part of ME's theme. 

Want to know why it's just possible it always was part of it.  There are numerous things relating to the Phoenix.  Redemption is a huge theme within ME.  The comic is called Redemption.  The Phoenix rises from the ashes.  Javik seeks redemption.  Shepard rises in ME1, from the ashes.  Shepard rises at the beginning of ME2, from the ashes.  Javik is found and rises from 50k year old ashes.  Every single person Shepard teams up with is in need of some redemption.  Pick one and redemption is needed and is found, because of Shepard.  Quite literally Shepard is bringing lost lambs back to the fold, like a Shepard.  The comic is called redemption.  The galaxy is full of a bunch of children who can't do things for themselves-they rely on reaper tech, they can't confront real enemies or even think about their existence.  They need redemption through self-determination.

Leviathan rises up from its own ashes, the weight of its mistakes and near extinction.  The galaxy needs to rise up from the ashes as well and the main character of three stories is left in a pile of rubble and ashes.  After all this, does it make sense to leave Shepard there?

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 02 septembre 2012 - 12:14 .

[IamDanThaMan]

Xellith, honestly, yes, that is totally true. Bioware built too complex of lore and characters for you to really understand by just playing mass effect 3. But the same can bes said of the halo universe, metal gear, or star wars. From a gameplay standpoint, you can still have a fun time, but to really understand everything,you have to have played and read everything else.

[drayfish]

People seriously need to stop using the term 'moral conflict' incorrectly - and I am look specifically at you Dreman, although there are other offenders.

You may like the endings for what they say in all their nihilistic glory; you may believe that Bioware has the right to make whatever statement that they like, therefore they do not need to give their players 'choice' (despite years of marketting declaring that they would); but it is wholly inaccurate, and ethically suspect to keep using the term 'moral conflict' for the endings that Mass Effect 3 delivered.

They are not. They carry none of the complexity or freedom of action that would make them true philosophical connundrums. Indeed, they are simplistically engineered to compel the player to embrace one of the Reaper's morally repugnant beliefs; and forcing someone to perform a war crime is not a 'moral conflict'. As has been said previously (and repeatedly), a sociopath therefore 'wins' that scenario - they get to perform an act they are completely comfortable with, and are told that they were right to do so.

Think of the end of The Dark Knight - the Joker sets up a scenario in which two boats have the opportunity to blow one another up to save themselves. The 'moral conflict' is whether or not you press the trigger - but if you do, you loose anyway. The game is engineered so that even in winning you loose. Kill others and you prove that you think your life is worth more than someone else's. You become a murderer in order to live. You destroy life to value life. It's not a real test - its engineered so that it cannot be won.

And so, the only way that the people in The Dark Knight actually pass that phoney 'moral conflict' is by not playing - a choice that it appears many people now seem to be making with Mass Effect.

Had Bioware really wanted to put true moral conflict in the game they would have shown uglier consequences after such a choice. Instead, at present, the universe cries out resounding blissful praise for Shepard's actions, not bothering to mourn what was lost, and whitewashing over any of the ugliness that lies at its heart.

That's not moral conflict, that's an overt celebration of ethically unforgivable acts.

The game forces you to press the Joker's trigger. Therefore your morality is not tested, you are just compelled to fall into line.

Modifié par drayfish, 02 septembre 2012 - 12:34 .

[3DandBeyond]

Xellith wrote...

Is this accurate? Because this is the message thats coming through to me from reading the last few pages from some people

Xelith, I can honestly say for ME3, you don't need to play or read anything beforehand to "understand" it.  I've played it standalone, from ME2 on, and from ME1 on.  There's some incidental dialogue changed, some characters that don't show up, but nothing obviously out of place or missing.

ME3 alone makes as much sense as playing it from ME1 through does.  And ME1 and 2 add very little if anything of substance to it.  Except for Conrad. 

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Xellith wrote...

Is this accurate? Because this is the message thats coming through to me from reading the last few pages from some people

Xelith, I can honestly say for ME3, you don't need to play or read anything beforehand to "understand" it.  I've played it standalone, from ME2 on, and from ME1 on.  There's some incidental dialogue changed, some characters that don't show up, but nothing obviously out of place or missing.

ME3 alone makes as much sense as playing it from ME1 through does.  And ME1 and 2 add very little if anything of substance to it.  Except for Conrad. 

Conrad is the true hero of Mass Effect lol

[Archonsg]

drayfish wrote...

Think of the end of The Dark Knight - the Joker sets up a scenario in which two boats have the opportunity to blow one another up to save themselves. The 'moral conflict' is whether or not you press the trigger - but if you do, you loose anyway. The game is engineered so that even in winning you loose. Kill others and you prove that you think your life is worth more than someone else's. You become a murderer in order to live. You destroy life to value life. It's not a real test - its engineered so that it cannot be won.

And so, the only way that the people in The Dark Knight actually pass that phoney 'moral conflict' is by not playing - a choice that it appears many people now seem to be making with Mass Effect.

Or choose the "Refuse" option. 
Still sad that it was the only time the Shepard I know from the previous games came back to the fore, and promptly had "Artistic vision" smack him (and us players) round the head. 

[Dragoonlordz]

AresKeith wrote...

Conrad is the true hero of Mass Effect lol

Conrad is the Mass Effect equivilant of Sandal from Dragon Age.

[3DandBeyond]

drayfish wrote...

People seriously need to stop using the term 'moral conflict' incorrectly - and I am look specifically at you Dreman, although there are other offenders.

You may like the endings for what they say in all their nihilistic glory; you may believe that Bioware has the right to make whatever statement that they like, therefore they do not need to give their players 'choice' (despite years of marketting declaring that they would); but it is wholly inaccurate, and ethically suspect to keep using the term 'moral conflict' for the endings that Mass Effect 3 delivered.

They are not. They carry none of the complexity or freedom of action that would make them true philosophical connundrums. Indeed, they are simplistically engineered to compell the player to embrace one of the Reaper's morally repugnant beliefs; and forcing someone to perform a war crime is not a 'moral conflict'. As has been said previously (and repeatedly), a sociopath therefore 'wins' that scenario - they get to perform an act they are completely comfortable with, and are told that they were right to do so.

Think of the end of The Dark Knight - the Joker sets up a scenario in which two boats have the opportunity to blow one another up to save themselves. The 'moral conflict' is whether or not you press the trigger - but if you do, you loose anyway. The game is engineered so that even in winning you loose. Kill others and you prove that you think your life is worth more than someone else's. You become a murderer in order to live. You destroy life to value life. It's not a real test - its engineered so that it cannot be won.

And so, the only way that the people in The Dark Knight actually pass that phoney 'moral conflict' is by not playing - a choice that it appears many people now seem to be making with Mass Effect.

Had Bioware really wanted to put true moral conflict in the game they would have shown uglier consequences after such a choice. Instead, at present, the universe cries out resounding blissful praise for Shepard's actions, not bothering to mourn what was lost, and whitewashing over any of the ugliness that lies at its heart.

That's not moral conflict, that's an overt celebration of ethically unforgivable acts.

The game forces you to press the Joker's trigger. Therefore your morality is not tested, you are just forced to fall into line.

Yes, exactly.  Consequences should exist that don't.  Green eyed people are irrationally happy.  EDI's alive - well thanks for that EDI, Shepard had to die for you to say what you already said in London.  We may transcend mortality-oh joy.  And the geth fully understand organics-well, familiarity might breed contempt.  But just what is an organic now?

Destroy features a quick look at EDI-a remembrance, no scenes of inactive geth with quarians worried about their own future with Hackett proclaiming "it's all good.  We can rebuild it, we have the technology."  Uh, no, no you don't.  The galaxy is an idiot that never wanted to learn how to make a relay (Aethyta did and the Asari told her to forget about it).  They never worked together to make a sandwich until Shepard came along, but suddenly they're going to hold hands and smooch.  Ok the geth were devalued-the krogan know what that's like and might be a little worried that if Shepard could do that, then what will happen if someone wants them gone, again.

Control, I think I like you just as little as I like the others.  Shepard cannot contact anyone to tell them s/he is reaper god.  The reapers have undigested people goo inside them.  People hate them for that.  I can't see why others don't view this as an issue.  They are huge reminders of mortality and they are like lightning rods for fear.  All anyone will know is the crucible went off, Shepard is gone, and the reapers are acting crazy-what's to worry about?  So what the Many will have some huge nannies to nurse their babies and cater to their every need.  Happy days are here again.

I think moral conflict implies that some moral option is achieved that does have legitimate, authentic consequences.  I don't see them shown in the endings, but I envision them in a true aftermath.

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Think of the end of The Dark Knight - the Joker sets up a scenario in which two boats have the opportunity to blow one another up to save themselves. The 'moral conflict' is whether or not you press the trigger - but if you do, you loose anyway. The game is engineered so that even in winning you loose. Kill others and you prove that you think your life is worth more than someone else's. You become a murderer in order to live. You destroy life to value life. It's not a real test - its engineered so that it cannot be won.

And so, the only way that the people in The Dark Knight actually pass that phoney 'moral conflict' is by not playing - a choice that it appears many people now seem to be making with Mass Effect.

Or choose the "Refuse" option. 
Still sad that it was the only time the Shepard I know from the previous games came back to the fore, and promptly had "Artistic vision" smack him (and us players) round the head. 

Yes, the backbone returned.  The personality is once again fully Shepard's.  RIP.  No good deed goes unpunished.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I've said it once, I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again...

Refusal Victory.  It needs to be done.  Turn down the idiotic starchild and win on our own.  Do you think I gathered all of those fleets and armies just to push a "destroy Reapers" button?  Hell no!  We will fight and win conventionally!

[samb]

 It makes sense for BW to releash a game that fit it's budget and then use the profit to make more DLC if demand is there. 
I think BW bite off more than it could chew in ME3 which is why they gutted the ME2 characters.  If they included all ME2 characters then we maybe looking at 2 more discs of stuff for a total of 4 discs. This makes the game more expensive to make, which means they mght not be able to sell it for just $60.  Even with only 2 discs it is pretty awkward to change discs as it breaks immersion. 

It makes more sense (as in profitable) to put out a product that is only 75% complete and upgrade it later when there is confirmed demand for it. Which this thread has already shown. 

[3DandBeyond]

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...

I've said it once, I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again...

Refusal Victory.  It needs to be done.  Turn down the idiotic starchild and win on our own.  Do you think I gathered all of those fleets and armies just to push a "destroy Reapers" button?  Hell no!  We will fight and win conventionally!

I do agree.  What I am suggesting is the least invasive way to change what we have, but I'd be happy any way it was done, as long as we don't end up with reaper overlords and green eyes.

Destroy them through the use of the real crucible and not some type that relies on the choice consoles-make it weaken the reapers as a dark energy device so we can fight and demolish them, create a true chance for a refuse victory-all of that works for me.  However, I am trying to consider what they might do based on the resources they might apply, the other DLC needing (in their opinion) attention to also keep other fans happy, and other factors-VAs, graphics, rendering, and so on.

I want the moon, but understand I'd consider myself lucky to get a toothpick.

The moon is all the other most requested DLC, even post-ending DLC of reunions and rebuilding, putting down rebellion and putting out fires and such.  I'd love ME2 squadmates to return.  I'd love the use of assets in some authentic war, the cataclysm of a galaxy fighting for its very life-at long last fully awake and relying on themselves and each other.  My wishes are for a lot of things.  But I also have a minimum that would help me like the game again.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 02 septembre 2012 - 12:51 .

[3DandBeyond]

samb wrote...

 It makes sense for BW to releash a game that fit it's budget and then use the profit to make more DLC if demand is there. 
I think BW bite off more than it could chew in ME3 which is why they gutted the ME2 characters.  If they included all ME2 characters then we maybe looking at 2 more discs of stuff for a total of 4 discs. This makes the game more expensive to make, which means they mght not be able to sell it for just $60.  Even with only 2 discs it is pretty awkward to change discs as it breaks immersion. 

It makes more sense (as in profitable) to put out a product that is only 75% complete and upgrade it later when there is confirmed demand for it. Which this thread has already shown. 

I think you "get" it.

I and others, often expressed the desire or wish that ME3 had been a bigger, even 2 part game. 

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

samb wrote...

 It makes sense for BW to releash a game that fit it's budget and then use the profit to make more DLC if demand is there. 
I think BW bite off more than it could chew in ME3 which is why they gutted the ME2 characters.  If they included all ME2 characters then we maybe looking at 2 more discs of stuff for a total of 4 discs. This makes the game more expensive to make, which means they mght not be able to sell it for just $60.  Even with only 2 discs it is pretty awkward to change discs as it breaks immersion. 

It makes more sense (as in profitable) to put out a product that is only 75% complete and upgrade it later when there is confirmed demand for it. Which this thread has already shown. 

I think you "get" it.

I and others, often expressed the desire or wish that ME3 had been a bigger, even 2 part game. 

maybe even three discs, although it would still be one disc for PS3

[N7_Paragon2077]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...

I've said it once, I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again...

Refusal Victory.  It needs to be done.  Turn down the idiotic starchild and win on our own.  Do you think I gathered all of those fleets and armies just to push a "destroy Reapers" button?  Hell no!  We will fight and win conventionally!

I do agree.  What I am suggesting is the least invasive way to change what we have, but I'd be happy any way it was done, as long as we don't end up with reaper overlords and green eyes.

Destroy them through the use of the real crucible and not some type that relies on the choice consoles-make it weaken the reapers as a dark energy device so we can fight and demolish them, create a true chance for a refuse victory-all of that works for me.  However, I am trying to consider what they might do based on the resources they might apply, the other DLC needing (in their opinion) attention to also keep other fans happy, and other factors-VAs, graphics, rendering, and so on.

I want the moon, but understand I'd consider myself lucky to get a toothpick.

The moon is all the other most requested DLC, even post-ending DLC of reunions and rebuilding, putting down rebellion and putting out fires and such.  I'd love ME2 squadmates to return.  I'd love the use of assets in some authentic war, the cataclysm of a galaxy fighting for its very life-at long last fully awake and relying on themselves and each other.  My wishes are for a lot of things.  But I also have a minimum that would help me like the game again.

This x1000. Well said, and I'm in the same boat. Also, I'd be all for a bigger ME3, too.

[Chardonney]

3DandBeyond wrote...

samb wrote...

 It makes sense for BW to releash a game that fit it's budget and then use the profit to make more DLC if demand is there. 
I think BW bite off more than it could chew in ME3 which is why they gutted the ME2 characters.  If they included all ME2 characters then we maybe looking at 2 more discs of stuff for a total of 4 discs. This makes the game more expensive to make, which means they mght not be able to sell it for just $60.  Even with only 2 discs it is pretty awkward to change discs as it breaks immersion. 

It makes more sense (as in profitable) to put out a product that is only 75% complete and upgrade it later when there is confirmed demand for it. Which this thread has already shown. 

I think you "get" it.

I and others, often expressed the desire or wish that ME3 had been a bigger, even 2 part game. 

I agree fully and I wouldn't have cared how much it would've cost. It would have been worth every penny.

[3DandBeyond]

Chardonney wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

samb wrote...

 It makes sense for BW to releash a game that fit it's budget and then use the profit to make more DLC if demand is there. 
I think BW bite off more than it could chew in ME3 which is why they gutted the ME2 characters.  If they included all ME2 characters then we maybe looking at 2 more discs of stuff for a total of 4 discs. This makes the game more expensive to make, which means they mght not be able to sell it for just $60.  Even with only 2 discs it is pretty awkward to change discs as it breaks immersion. 

It makes more sense (as in profitable) to put out a product that is only 75% complete and upgrade it later when there is confirmed demand for it. Which this thread has already shown. 

I think you "get" it.

I and others, often expressed the desire or wish that ME3 had been a bigger, even 2 part game. 

I agree fully and I wouldn't have cared how much it would've cost. It would have been worth every penny.

Maybe they'd see fit to do a director's cut or Fan Edition and create a lottery whereby fans chosen (method to be determined later) can help create the story with full BW oversight for final content.  I can dream.