247 réponses à ce sujet

[CaIIisto]

Space magic.

God damned Space magic.....

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

It isn't looking for his DNA. It's looking for his "energy." Live by space magic, die by space magic.

The thing already has enough energy to destroy every synthetic life form and much of the advanced technology in the galaxy.  The backfire alone can destroy a planet.  What's the "energy" of one human going to add to it?

This isn't helping the "sacrifice" make any more sense.

I wasn't  trying to make it make sense. I'm just pointing out that your description wasn't correct, and so your alternative method couldn't work.

It's mysticism, not science. We're talking life energy, or some such. That's why I mentioned space magic, but I should have been clearer.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 septembre 2012 - 10:33 .

[Netsfn1427]

[quote]iakus wrote...

Shepard is only vaporized in the other two because Bioware chose to vaporize Shepard. Is there any reason given why a blood sample wouldn't do for the space magic beam rather than tossing in the whole Shepard? [/quote]

Cause it required his whole body? It couldn't get everything from a single drop of blood? But why does anything happen in fiction? Because the author deems it so. If it makes sense, and there are plenty of available explanations as to why this happens, then it's fine. [/quote]

[quote]The whole sacrifice theme is unique to ME3.  While there were sacrifices in the previous two games, the theme has been  more about beating the odds, overcoming impossible odds and living to tell the tale.  Everthting from Shepard's preservice history to the Suicide Mission in ME2.  Bit for some reasons, ME3 decided to turn Shepard from a live hero to a dead messiah because reason. [/quote]

ME1 and ME2 are vastly different games. This is because the backdrop to both is different. Likewise, the backdrop to ME3 is essentially armageddon. It's the end of the galaxy, or at least it appears to be. And Shepard did beat the odds, impossible as they may have been, stopping a billion year cycle despite all the trials and tribulations along the way. Like it or not, coming out alive wasn't required. 

[quote]Its not even that EDI and the geth die that bugs me.  It's that their death is so meaningless.  their hostages to the story and nothing more.  They don't die doing something heroic like Mordin.  They don't get a final farewell speech like Anderson.  They just...die... and are discarded like so much rubbish

Even as hostages, their deaths are ineffective, as people overwhelmingly choose Destroy anyway.[/quote]

I thought their deaths meant something. We'll have to agree to disagree there, since that's purely opinion. As for people overwhelmingly choosing destroy?  Doesn't really invalidate the choice. I suspect most people who play DA:O do the Dark Ritual. Does it invalidate that choice?

[quote] Bioware seriously overplayed the sacrifice issue.  And doubled down on it in EC.  They can't seem to understand that we play this game to be entertained.  And if you piule the misery and sacrifice too high, the story stops being entertaining.  The game stops being fun.  And the next thing you know people stop buying your products and start looking for the next Kickstarter project to back...

[/quote]

Opinion. People also complained about Bioware killing most of the RPG elements from ME2. ME2 sold well anyway. ME3 had some of the elements back, but there's still more focus on the shooter mechanics than the RPG elements. There were complaints about MP and action mode, some quite valid. ME3 sold well anyway.  This time might be the time it does blow up in their face. But until proven otherwise, let's hold off on the "this will doom them!" Because Bioware should have been doomed about four or five times over already if we're keeping score.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

mjb203 wrote...

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Shepard is only vaporized in the other two because Bioware chose to vaporize Shepard. Is there any reason given why a blood sample wouldn't do for the space magic beam rather than tossing in the whole Shepard?

It isn't looking for his DNA. It's looking for his "energy." Live by space magic, die by space magic.

The thing already has enough energy to destroy every synthetic life form and much of the advanced technology in the galaxy.  The backfire alone can destroy a planet.  What's the "energy" of one human going to add to it?

This isn't helping the "sacrifice" make any more sense.

Yeah, the lack of an explanation as to what this "energy" of Shepard's is that it requires doesn't make sense.  Neither does the Catalyst's, "You will die, but the Reapers wil do what you say" (summarization) in Control.  Really?  How does a dead being tell you what to do in real time?

Oh, I know this one! The Control panel cyberizes his mind into a new Catalyst, but this requires so much energy that your body is destroyed in the process.

[Netsfn1427]

AlanC9 wrote...

mjb203 wrote...
I've got to agree with iakus, the major theme has been overcoming impossible odds and living to tell the tale.  Much more so than sacrifice (i.e.: the fact you can get out of the suicide mission with no casualites).

Well, that's probably the fundamental dividing line here. For me, the game was always about Shepard being the one who would face up to the unpleasant reality of the situation and do the things that nobody else could do or would do. So the endings didn't violate anything about the series.

(I always thought that beting able to get all squadmates and the crew through the SM was a regrettable defect)

Agreed on this.

[mjb203]

AlanC9 wrote...

mjb203 wrote...
I've got to agree with iakus, the major theme has been overcoming impossible odds and living to tell the tale.  Much more so than sacrifice (i.e.: the fact you can get out of the suicide mission with no casualites).

Well, that's probably the fundamental dividing line here. For me, the game was always about Shepard being the one who would face up to the unpleasant reality of the situation and do the things that nobody else could do or would do. So the endings didn't violate anything about the series.

(I always thought that beting able to get all squadmates and the crew through the SM was a regrettable defect)

Fair enough, but I would argue that since Bioware allowed all squadmates of the suicide mission to survive, they set a precedent as to what their customers would expect from ME3.

This is easily seen by the threads wanting Thane to live (even though I thought his death was well done in ME3) and the railroad of Jacob dumping Femshep if she romanced him. 

In taking away the POSSIBILITY of an ending that allows for no sacrifice, Bioware upset a lot of people who were expecting something more akin to the suicide mission.  Sure, there is still room for extra sacrifice from Shepard and company, but it would be based on a CHOICE made by the PLAYER for roleplaying their Shep as they see fit.

To pull from my previous example of allowing there to be a control panel for Shep to mess with to fire the crucible instead of sacrificing himself (or geth/EDI) and making that panel a selectable object with a high enough EMS (let's say 3100, since that is the EMS required for the breath scene), it could have allowed all choices to have Shepard still living, if the player wanted the "overcoming all odds and living to tell the tale" or have Shep continue on down the path he was on to grab the Control rods/shoot the Destroy tube/jump into the Synthesis beam to go down the sacrifice route (and have the Destroy blast actually kill Shep and not allow for the breath scene if he chooses that route).

That could still make sense within the story context and allow for a much larger portion of the fanbase to be satisfied with the endings.

[AlanC9]

Netsfn1427 wrote...
 Because Bioware should have been doomed about four or five times over already if we're keeping score. 

Once for each ME game (dialogue wheel, not enough RPG, betraying the earlier games)

Jade Empire makes three (action RPG).

Once for KotOR (selling out to the console market).

Once for NWN1's OC (terrible 3D instead of beautiful 2D, lame plot, no party system, horrible 3E rules implementation, excessive focus on MP, paid DLC).

By my count that's six -- unless BG2 removing BG1's open map makes it seven.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 septembre 2012 - 10:40 .

[mjb203]

Nyoka wrote...

iakus wrote...

Its not even that EDI and the geth die that bugs me.  It's that their death is so meaningless.  their hostages to the story and nothing more.  They don't die doing something heroic like Mordin.  They don't get a final farewell speech like Anderson.  They just...die... and are discarded like so much rubbish

Even as hostages, their deaths are ineffective, as people overwhelmingly choose Destroy anyway.

The reason nobody cares about edi and the geth is that people notice the trick. It's just a trick to make destroy harder. People realize it's Bioware trying to make the choice difficult, which pulls them right out of the required suspension of disbelief we willingly fall into when we go watch a movie, read a book or play a game.

It's the same thing as when you're watching a horror movie. If you "get out of the movie" then it's not scary anymore. If you notice a change in the makeup or in the hairstyle of a character between scenes for example and that pulls you out of the movie, then the scary scenes look just silly or plain boring. You're not invested in what's happening in that moment so it doesn't have any effect on you. In the case of edi and the geth, what breaks the spell is the realization that it's just a trick, not the natural flow of events.

For this reason people not so much hate edi&geth's death as they roll their eyes at it.

Excellent summary Nyoka!

Edit: I've actually headcanoned that the geth got out of range of the Destroy beam and EDI was only temporarily knocked offline by it, with Joker going all dramatic and putting her name on the memorial board before she got started back up.

Modifié par mjb203, 23 septembre 2012 - 10:42 .

[Netsfn1427]

AlanC9 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...
 Because Bioware should have been doomed about four or five times over already if we're keeping score. 

Once for each ME game (dialogue wheel, not enough RPG, betraying the earlier games)

Jade Empire makes three (action RPG).

Once for KotOR (selling out to the console market).

Once for NWN1's OC (terrible 3D instead of beautiful 2D, lame plot, no party system, horrible 3E rules implementation, excessive focus on MP, paid DLC).

By my count that's six -- unless BG2 removing BG1's open map makes it seven.

DA2 for the graphics and combat change, going to the dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist. In fairness though, DA2 wasn't a great game, even if the flaws had more to do with it being rushed and repeating dungeons than those issues.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Nyoka wrote...

iakus wrote...

Its not even that EDI and the geth die that bugs me.  It's that their death is so meaningless.  their hostages to the story and nothing more.  They don't die doing something heroic like Mordin.  They don't get a final farewell speech like Anderson.  They just...die... and are discarded like so much rubbish

Even as hostages, their deaths are ineffective, as people overwhelmingly choose Destroy anyway.

The reason nobody cares about edi and the geth is that people notice the trick. It's just a trick to make destroy harder. People realize it's Bioware trying to make the choice difficult, which pulls them right out of the required suspension of disbelief we willingly fall into when we go watch a movie, read a book or play a game.

It's the same thing as when you're watching a horror movie. If you "get out of the movie" then it's not scary anymore. If you notice a change in the makeup or in the hairstyle of a character between scenes for example and that pulls you out of the movie, then the scary scenes look just silly or plain boring. You're not invested in what's happening in that moment so it doesn't have any effect on you. In the case of edi and the geth, what breaks the spell is the realization that it's just a trick, not the natural flow of events.

For this reason people not so much hate edi&geth's death as they roll their eyes at it.

If it's a trick, how come EDI's name shows up on the memorial wall in the epilouge?

[D24O]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

If it's a trick, how come EDI's name shows up on the memorial wall in the epilouge?

Indoctrination. 

[AlanC9]

mjb203 wrote...
Fair enough, but I would argue that since Bioware allowed all squadmates of the suicide mission to survive, they set a precedent as to what their customers would expect from ME3.

I don't think precedent should have any force here. Neither does Bio; they'll make "improvements" -- quotes because we don't all agree on what constitutes improvement, and sometimes a change doesn't go as planned -- anytime.

To pull from my previous example of allowing there to be a control panel for Shep to mess with to fire the crucible instead of sacrificing himself (or geth/EDI) and making that panel a selectable object with a high enough EMS (let's say 3100, since that is the EMS required for the breath scene), it could have allowed all choices to have Shepard still living, if the player wanted the "overcoming all odds and living to tell the tale" or have Shep continue on down the path he was on to grab the Control rods/shoot the Destroy tube/jump into the Synthesis beam to go down the sacrifice route (and have the Destroy blast actually kill Shep and not allow for the breath scene if he chooses that route).

So if you've got 3100 EMS you can still be really stupid and die?

[fainmaca]

Pantanplan wrote...

Because a lot of people mistake grimdark stories for realistic stories. I would love a perfect ending, as long as it was difficult to obtain.

Agreed, especially the bold.

[AlanC9]

D24O wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

If it's a trick, how come EDI's name shows up on the memorial wall in the epilouge?

Indoctrination. 

Indoctrination of the player, right? Shep isn't there. Or is he supposed to be hallucinating that he's seeing these things? I can't keep track of what I'm supposed to believe if I believe in IT.

[Nightwriter]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

People continue to say that the mere existence of an ending that would make me happy is a threat to their personal ease of play. This is lame. You are LAME, sirs and madams.

BioWare has satisfied us both in the past. It really isn't hard. I'm tired of hearing that the only way for me to get the good feelz is for you to feel stupid. It's crap. Crapola. Crappalingalong. Crappa dappa doo. It's a crap candle sticking in a crap cake.

And Bioware doesn't have to satisfy you this time. They chose to go in a different direction. Sometimes, stories don't end the way you want them to. You don't like it? Write your own story and then end it as you please.

You have now lit the crap candle in the crap cake and are singing happy crapday to you.

Like I don't even know how to address all this, there's too much, this is me right now. And this. And this.

1. BioWare has preached about variety and appealing to a wide range of players far too often and far too loudly for your position to be valid. CHOICE. DIVERGENT OUTCOMES. DEFINING YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE. YOU DECIDE. IT'S YOUR GAME. BUY IT AND ALL THIS WILL BE YOURS! I don't care how many grains of salt you should take PR with; videogame developers don't get a pass for false advertisement. You cannot defend BioWare's right to railroad us when they promised they wouldn't.

2. The series has always given you a choice between brighter and darker outcomes. It's not "going in a different direction," it's changing its nature at the last minute. You might have an argument if the rest of the series had been as dark as a GRRM book. Sadly, it was not, and you don't. Even the previous sacrifices in ME3 were well written and made me feel good in the end. I felt like I was given enough control to walk away with an outcome I could live with. ME3's endgame can't even live up to the quality of the rest of ME3.

3. "BioWare doesn't have to satisfy you" is almost always a silly thing to say. Of course it doesn't. A criticism isn't a declaration of royalty and you need to stop roaring THIS ISN'T YOUR GAME! every time someone makes a personal judgment about the game. It's, like, annoying and stuff.

4. BioWare has always made an effort to satisfy fans. Tali a love interest? STFU, BioWare will decide what to do with its own characters and creative properties -- go make your own game with an alien LI in a mask if you want it so much. Archangel being Garrus? How dare you ask them to rewrite that character just to squeeze your favorite squaddie into the game, they're going in a different direction, live with it. Oh, wait. They did all those things. WELL IT'S STILL NOT OUR GAME EXCEPT FOR THE PARTS WHERE THEY BENT THEMSELVES OVER BACKWARD TO PLEASE US. But the parts I wish they would rewrite -- oh no, I am completely overstepping my bounds. It's completely different. Artistic integrity only applies to endings that -- have -- like, colors in them.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 23 septembre 2012 - 10:54 .

[AlanC9]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

DA2 for the graphics and combat change, going to the dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist. In fairness though, DA2 wasn't a great game, even if the flaws had more to do with it being rushed and repeating dungeons than those issues.

Wow -- I must have blotted that one from my memory.

[D24O]

AlanC9 wrote...

Indoctrination of the player, right? Shep isn't there. Or is he supposed to be hallucinating that he's seeing these things? I can't keep track of what I'm supposed to believe if I believe in IT.

No, Shepard is there. It's just indoctrination.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Nyoka wrote...

iakus wrote...

Its not even that EDI and the geth die that bugs me.  It's that their death is so meaningless.  their hostages to the story and nothing more.  They don't die doing something heroic like Mordin.  They don't get a final farewell speech like Anderson.  They just...die... and are discarded like so much rubbish

Even as hostages, their deaths are ineffective, as people overwhelmingly choose Destroy anyway.

The reason nobody cares about edi and the geth is that people notice the trick. It's just a trick to make destroy harder. People realize it's Bioware trying to make the choice difficult, which pulls them right out of the required suspension of disbelief we willingly fall into when we go watch a movie, read a book or play a game.

It's the same thing as when you're watching a horror movie. If you "get out of the movie" then it's not scary anymore. If you notice a change in the makeup or in the hairstyle of a character between scenes for example and that pulls you out of the movie, then the scary scenes look just silly or plain boring. You're not invested in what's happening in that moment so it doesn't have any effect on you. In the case of edi and the geth, what breaks the spell is the realization that it's just a trick, not the natural flow of events.

For this reason people not so much hate edi&geth's death as they roll their eyes at it.

Example of sacrifice choice:

ME1 -- Bring Down The Sky. Capture or kill Balak and have 3 hostages die (one of whom willingly sacrificed another hostage rather than give herself up as the one who was giving Shepard information); or let Balak and the rest go free to save the three hostages. How many here sacrificed the hostages to capture or kill Balak? I turned him over to the Alliance. Why? What he did outside and what he'd planned to do it was too dangerous to let him go free.

Bold section: Shepard's wardrobe change and weapon change after laser blast. From that moment on it was just an Ed Wood moment -- Anderson/TIM brought me back in momentarily. The Catalyst Scene pulled me completely out of the story.

[Netsfn1427]

Nyoka wrote...

iakus wrote...

Its not even that EDI and the geth die that bugs me.  It's that their death is so meaningless.  their hostages to the story and nothing more.  They don't die doing something heroic like Mordin.  They don't get a final farewell speech like Anderson.  They just...die... and are discarded like so much rubbish

Even as hostages, their deaths are ineffective, as people overwhelmingly choose Destroy anyway.

The reason nobody cares about edi and the geth is that people notice the trick. It's just a trick to make destroy harder. People realize it's Bioware trying to make the choice difficult, which pulls them right out of the required suspension of disbelief we willingly fall into when we go watch a movie, read a book or play a game.

It's the same thing as when you're watching a horror movie. If you "get out of the movie" then it's not scary anymore. If you notice a change in the makeup or in the hairstyle of a character between scenes for example and that pulls you out of the movie, then the scary scenes look just silly or plain boring. You're not invested in what's happening in that moment so it doesn't have any effect on you. In the case of edi and the geth, what breaks the spell is the realization that it's just a trick, not the natural flow of events.

For this reason people not so much hate edi&geth's death as they roll their eyes at it.

A fair point, and something they do frequently. DA:O has the most famous one with the Dark Ritual. There's zero consequence in game; everything is implied. It's unlikely to make for anything in the series, but DA:3 could always surprise me. So I'd imagine most people just did the Dark Ritual. 

Actually I take it back; female wardens who romance Alistair do get screwed by the option. But that's a specific subset of the people playing.

At least with this choice you get tangible outcomes to your choice opposed to vague "things could happen in the future" that we've gotten so much in the past.

[mjb203]

AlanC9 wrote...

mjb203 wrote...
Fair enough, but I would argue that since Bioware allowed all squadmates of the suicide mission to survive, they set a precedent as to what their customers would expect from ME3.

I don't think precedent should have any force here. Neither does Bio; they'll make "improvements" -- quotes because we don't all agree on what constitutes improvement, and sometimes a change doesn't go as planned -- anytime.

To pull from my previous example of allowing there to be a control panel for Shep to mess with to fire the crucible instead of sacrificing himself (or geth/EDI) and making that panel a selectable object with a high enough EMS (let's say 3100, since that is the EMS required for the breath scene), it could have allowed all choices to have Shepard still living, if the player wanted the "overcoming all odds and living to tell the tale" or have Shep continue on down the path he was on to grab the Control rods/shoot the Destroy tube/jump into the Synthesis beam to go down the sacrifice route (and have the Destroy blast actually kill Shep and not allow for the breath scene if he chooses that route).

So if you've got 3100 EMS you can still be really stupid and die?

Precedent totally matter with customers.  They expect improvement, not a change of direction, which is what the Catalyst was.

And they point of 3100 EMS was an example of player choice.  They could ROLEPLAY their Shepard to either see the panel and try to do something with it or they could not want to take the chance and sacrifice themselves.  Or a player's Shepard just might not see the panel.  The point of that being it offers the players a choice and they can headcanon why or why not their Shepard chose something.

And regarding this, I'll requote Nightwriter, as I believe they summed this issue up well:

Nightwriter wrote...

1. BioWare has preached about variety and appealing to a wide range of players far too often and far too loudly for your position to be valid. CHOICE. DIVERGENT OUTCOMES. DEFINING YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE. YOU DECIDE. IT'S YOUR GAME. BUY IT AND ALL THIS WILL BE YOURS! I don't care how many grains of salt you should take PR with; videogame developers don't get a pass for false advertisement. You cannot defend BioWare's right to railroad us when they promised they wouldn't.

2. The series has always given you a choice between brighter and darker outcomes. It's not "going in a different direction," it's changing its nature at the last minute. You might have an argument if the rest of the series had been as dark as a GRRM book. Sadly, it was not, and you don't. Even the previous sacrifices in ME3 were well written and made me feel good in the end. I felt like I was given enough control to walk away with an outcome I could live with. ME3's endgame can't even live up to the quality of the rest of ME3.

3. "BioWare doesn't have to satisfy you" is almost always a silly thing to say. Of course it doesn't. A criticism isn't a declaration of royalty and you need to stop roaring THIS ISN'T YOUR GAME! every time someone makes a personal judgment about the game. It's, like, annoying and stuff.

4. BioWare has always made an effort to satisfy fans. Tali a love interest? STFU, BioWare will decide what to do with its own characters and creative properties -- go make your own game with an alien LI in a mask if you want it so much. Archangel being Garrus? How dare you ask them to rewrite that character just to squeeze your favorite squaddie into the game, they're going in a different direction, live with it. Oh, wait. They did all those things. WELL IT'S STILL NOT OUR GAME EXCEPT FOR THE PARTS WHERE THEY BENT THEMSELVES OVER BACKWARD TO PLEASE US. But the parts I wish they would rewrite -- oh no, I am completely overstepping my bounds. It's completely different. Artistic integrity only applies to endings that -- have -- like, colors in them.

Edit: formatting

Modifié par mjb203, 23 septembre 2012 - 10:59 .

[Iakus]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Cause it required his whole body? It couldn't get everything from a single drop of blood? But why does anything happen in fiction? Because the author deems it so. If it makes sense, and there are plenty of available explanations as to why this happens, then it's fine.

But it doesn't make sense.  And there is no explanation available.  Why did the author drop a bridge on Shepard for this ending?

ME1 and ME2 are vastly different games. This is because the backdrop to both is different. Likewise, the backdrop to ME3 is essentially armageddon. It's the end of the galaxy, or at least it appears to be. And Shepard did beat the odds, impossible as they may have been, stopping a billion year cycle despite all the trials and tribulations along the way. Like it or not, coming out alive wasn't required.

But ME3 is part of a trilogy, of which ME1 and ME2 were a part.  Shifting themes so drastically at the end of a story, especially when it so drastically affects the player's character:  not cool.

And while coming out alive may not have been "required"  It should have been an option, at least.

Opinion. People also complained about Bioware killing most of the RPG elements from ME2. ME2 sold well anyway. ME3 had some of the elements back, but there's still more focus on the shooter mechanics than the RPG elements. There were complaints about MP and action mode, some quite valid. ME3 sold well anyway.  This time might be the time it does blow up in their face. But until proven otherwise, let's hold off on the "this will doom them!" Because Bioware should have been doomed about four or five times over already if we're keeping score.

I wonder what the ME3 return/exchange numbers were?

ME3 by itself won't doom Bioware.  But it is showing a tend that may in the future do a lot of damage.  Games are entertainment.  If they fail to entertain, what are we buying?

Modifié par iakus, 23 septembre 2012 - 10:59 .

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

1. BioWare has preached about variety and appealing to a wide range of players far too often and far too loudly for your position to be valid. CHOICE. DIVERGENT OUTCOMES. DEFINING YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE. YOU DECIDE. IT'S YOUR GAME. BUY IT AND ALL THIS WILL BE YOURS! I don't care how many grains of salt you should take PR with; videogame developers don't get a pass for false advertisement. You cannot defend BioWare's right to railroad us when they promised they wouldn't.

2. The series has always given you a choice between brighter and darker outcomes. It's not "going in a different direction," it's changing its nature at the last minute. You might have an argument if the rest of the series had been as dark as a GRRM book. Sadly, it was not, and you don't. Even the previous sacrifices in ME3 were well written and made me feel good in the end. I felt like I was given enough control to walk away with an outcome I could live with. ME3's endgame can't even live up to the quality of the rest of ME3.

3. "BioWare doesn't have to satisfy you" is almost always a silly thing to say. Of course it doesn't. A criticism isn't a declaration of royalty and you need to stop roaring THIS ISN'T YOUR GAME! every time someone makes a personal judgment about the game. It's, like, annoying and stuff.

4. BioWare has always made an effort to satisfy fans. Tali a love interest? STFU, BioWare will decide what to do with its own characters and creative properties -- go make your own game with an alien LI in a mask if you want it so much. Archangel being Garrus? How dare you ask them to rewrite that character just to squeeze your favorite squaddie into the game, they're going in a different direction, live with it. Oh, wait. They did all those things. WELL IT'S STILL NOT OUR GAME EXCEPT FOR THE PARTS WHERE THEY BENT THEMSELVES OVER BACKWARD TO PLEASE US. But the parts I wish they would rewrite -- oh no, I am completely overstepping my bounds. It's completely different. Artistic integrity only applies to endings that -- have -- like, colors in them.

::fistbump::

[Netsfn1427]

Nightwriter wrote...

You have now lit the crap candle in the crap cake and are singing happy crapday to you.

Like I don't even know how to address all this, there's too much, this is me right now. And this. And this.

1. BioWare has preached about variety and appealing to a wide range of players far too often and far too loudly for your position to be valid. CHOICE. DIVERGENT OUTCOMES. DEFINING YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE. YOU DECIDE. IT'S YOUR GAME. BUY IT AND ALL THIS WILL BE YOURS! I don't care how many grains of salt you should take PR with; videogame developers don't get a pass for false advertisement. You cannot defend BioWare's right to railroad us when they promised they wouldn't.

There are divergent outcomes, about as divergent as you can get in a game like this. You've got three different ways to resolve the Geth/Quarian conflict. You've got three different ways to resolve the Genophage. You can have half your party members either die before the end of the game or be killed before the game even begins. You can define your experience- again, as much as you ever have in a Bioware game.  I have no idea what you expected, but how much did you believe was possible in this game?

2. The series has always given you a choice between brighter and darker outcomes. It's not "going in a different direction," it's changing its nature at the last minute. You might have an argument if the rest of the series had been as dark as a GRRM book. Sadly, it was not, and you don't. Even the previous sacrifices in ME3 were well written and made me feel good in the end. I felt like I was given enough control to walk away with an outcome I could live with. ME3's endgame can't even live up to the quality of the rest of ME3.

No, the entire third game is dark. Seeing Garrus say where he grew up is now just a ring of fire isn't dark? The Wrex confrontation if you betray him isn't dark? Sanctuary isn't dark? And it was trending that way in ME2. Seeing people melted in front of you? Mordin's side quest? Helping Samara kill her daughter? All dark stuff. It doesn't pop up at the end. The end is just the first time Shepard can lose his/her life.

3. "BioWare doesn't have to satisfy you" is almost always a silly thing to say. Of course it doesn't. A criticism isn't a declaration of royalty and you need to stop roaring THIS ISN'T YOUR GAME! every time someone makes a personal judgment about the game. It's, like, annoying and stuff.

It's also true. As I mentioned earlier and AlanC9 added, there's a long list of games where the fanbase was up and arms. Some critiques were listened to, others were not.

4. BioWare has always made an effort to satisfy fans. Tali a love interest? STFU, BioWare will decide what to do with its own characters and creative properties -- go make your own game with an alien LI in a mask if you want it so much. Archangel being Garrus? How dare you ask them to rewrite that character just to squeeze your favorite squaddie into the game, they're going in a different direction, live with it. Oh, wait. They did all those things. WELL IT'S STILL NOT OUR GAME EXCEPT FOR THE PARTS WHERE THEY BENT THEMSELVES OVER BACKWARD TO PLEASE US. But the parts I wish they would rewrite -- oh no, I am completely overstepping my bounds. It's completely different. Artistic integrity only applies to endings that -- have -- like, colors in them.

And there were plenty of times where they didn't listen. Wrex was never added back as a party member, for example. They still stuck with the voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel in the original ME. Odds are this is going to be one of those times when they didn't listen.

Modifié par Netsfn1427, 23 septembre 2012 - 11:08 .

[AlanC9]

Netsfn1427 wrote...
 All dark stuff. It doesn't pop up at the end. The end is just the first time Shepard can lose his/her life. 

Second, actually. Though it's pretty damn hard to get Shep killed in the Suicide Mission.