689 réponses à ce sujet

[deatharmonic]

arial wrote...

deatharmonic wrote...

arial wrote...

you all are taking my post completely out of context.

I am not putting the blame completely on the fans, nor am i putting it completely on Bioware.

Both groups are at fault.

arial wrote...

 The real reason the ending(s) were poorly recieved is quite simple.

since the day ME3 was anounced, people started speculating on what features it would have, how the story would progress, etc.

It came to the state where No game could realisticly match what fans expected.

When the game finally came out, and it could not live up to what people were sure it would be, people looked for every possible reason to blame for their dissatisfaction.

This is your OP, no blame is attributed to Bioware. People's expectations is the only thing you mention as the reason behind why the endings were poorly recieved.

absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Just because I did not mention Bioware, does not mean I do not partially blame them.

Lol, This is your topic, people should not have to make assumptions about what YOU believe. How is anyone supposed to know you attribute blame to Bioware if you don't say in your OP? Cause I sure as hell can't read minds. The only thing you do attribute blame to is peoples expectations, which is awfully reductive.

[arial]

Ratimir wrote...

That would make it "A real reason", not "THE real reason".

read the title, the word "The" is no where in there

[puppy maclove]

arial wrote...

you all are taking my post completely out of context.

I am not putting the blame completely on the fans, nor am i putting it completely on Bioware.

Both groups are at fault.

Your logic makes no sense... I smell a fanboy.

[XqctaX]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

arial wrote...

 The real reason the ending(s) were poorly recieved is quite simple.

since the day ME3 was anounced, people started speculating on what features it would have, how the story would progress, etc.

It came to the state where No game could realisticly match what fans expected.

When the game finally came out, and it could not live up to what people were sure it would be, people looked for every possible reason to blame for their dissatisfaction.

seriously, just don't post crap like this, it will never do any good.

im kinda wondering if arial wanted to take a jab at bioware.
but didnt want to do the dirty work him/herself 

[Ratimir]

arial wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

That would make it "A real reason", not "THE real reason".

read the title, the word "The" is no where in there

Read the first line of your original post. Heck, read the first word.

[Maxster_]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

On the Beam Run sequence,
Why would Harbinger risk taking time to shoot down the Normandy, which is waking people AWAY from the battle, when letting just one single soldier get onto the Citadel could mean the end of the Reapers?

if the beam is so important why is only harbinger there to protect it?

why does shepards EMS score define harbingers ineptitude?

Because they realized that one Reaper is more than enough to fry everyone running towards the beam from one direction, or maybe because the game engine wouldn't be able to handle it. 

Because... it just does. Enjoy the endings you heathen![/sarcasm]

Stop thinking, it will help you enjoy the game © someone on youtube(about ME3, of course).

I do find it funny that some people freaked out about ME3 on that not ME1 and ME2.

Because ME3 is nonsensical fairytale. It is not a scifi, it is not even a coherent story - it is plain nonsense.
It easily beats even terminator from ME2, even before the endings.

[Blueprotoss]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

Small amount of rage? You serious? I lurked the forums since 2007 and saw nothing remotely resembling this at all.

You clearly missed the small amounts of rage that has appeared with every Bioware game especially with the inventory system and Mako in ME1 or the gameplay and lack of RPG elements in ME2.

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

The EC was actually EA/Bioware's second reaction to the backlash. Their first was defending their product. SP DLC was temporariliy postponed due to the wrok in the EC.

If thats the case then Bioware wouldn't have created the EC before the small outrage and "leaks" wouldn't have been found in the EC.  Hindsight is 20/20 like the old saying has said.

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

You miss the point completely. Short term for EA not Bioware. (ME1 was not under EA) Generally EA, like any company who has a shortsighted business practice only concerns themselves with short term profit and maximizing that goal will put out substandard products and market the hell out of it like it is the second coming.  They will also appeal to the LCD and attempt to put out a product that they deem will have mass appeal. It's what Hollywood has been doing for decades with films, specifically sequels. EA taking over only meant that they could milk the ME IP for more short term gain and not care about consumer demand at all.

I didn't the point at all because no matter what you say ME isn't a short term thing based on alone on the work that was put into the series.  Ironically ME2 would be labeled as a "short term goal" over ME3 based on how both of them were developed at the same time but ME2 was released 1st.

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

If you buy that Bioware always wanted to put MP into a ME game fine, I don't. EA has been forcing MP and online gaming for some time. Frank Gibeau has been stating that EA preferres to put MP in all of their games and has been stating that SP is dead.

There's a lot of evidence to back up Bioware wanting to do a MP only ME game even when it was going to be the next Star Wars: Battlefront by gameplay means.  EA shelved that project and Bioware went with the survival mode later on with ME3.

[Blueprotoss]

RogueBot wrote...

I'm sure some people didn't like it because there weren't enough bat-nipples. Nothing's going to be liked by everyone. But generally speaking, TDKR was very well-received, unlike ME3's ending, Superman 64, the movie Gigli, etc.

You do know that you just contradicted yourself because there's no universal hatred for the ME3 endings unlike how there is mostly a universal hatred for Superman 64 and Gigli.

Ratimir wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

[If the endings were "poorly recieved" then the endings would have been completely redone instead of being explained.

If?

Are you seriously claiming that you don't think the endings were poorly received?

Seriously?

The endings didn't receive that much hate especially when you look at the small outrages with Dark Souls, Diablo 3, Zelda: Skyward Sword, Street Fighter x Tekken, RE: ORC, Dragon's Dogma, Hitman: Absolution, and the Tomb Raider reboot are to name a few that have occured this year.

Maxster_ wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

I do find it funny that some people freaked out about ME3 on that not ME1 and ME2.

Because ME3 is nonsensical fairytale. It is not a scifi, it is not even a coherent story - it is plain nonsense.
It easily beats even terminator from ME2, even before the endings.

ME3 is pretty coherent just like ME1 and ME2.  I'm pretty sure you aren't a fan of sci-fi to focus on minor details.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 11 octobre 2012 - 03:07 .

[Blueprotoss]

deatharmonic wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

deatharmonic wrote...

I take issue with this because I did a whole BSc degree in Psychology, not just a few classes and if there's anything at all you should take away from Psychology its that you CANNOT reduce human behaviour down to a single factor. Which is what you've done in the OP by stating the reaction to the endings was based on expectation, totally ignoring a plethora of other factors. Personally I can't comprehend why anyone (even those who haven't studied psychology) would be so reductive. In fact its a major criticism of a lot of past research; that researchers have attempted to attribute behaviour to a singular cause. 

The reaction to the endings stem from numerous reasons and for each person those reasons could be totally different from the next persons. I can't say expectation didn't play a part for some people, it may well have. However, for me I know it didn't.

 

To be fair some people did have way too high expectations for ME3 that "killed" their experience just like thinking ME3 was the last ME installment and thinking the endings would be completely unique based on the choices in Shepard's trilogy.

Thats pretty much what I said in the bold & underlined bit. Of course it played a role for some people, but the OP is treating expectation as the only factor influencing people's perceptions; which is wrong because there are numerous other factors at play.

Expectations was actually one of the main causes especially when you look at what some people wanted to be in ME3 based on way too high expectations.

[Biosman]

the starchild should have been a KEEPER, that would have made an awesome twist, and kept with the lore of the game, i don't know why BW didn't go with that. But the synthesis end is too starmagic it could never have worked, control and destroy would have sufficed, both with Shep surviving. but whichever choice he made, there had to be a final showdown with Harbinger (post DLC after Leviathan) where shep learns how to defeat a Alpha Reaper (which cannot be controlled) single handed.

Bioware should have employed me

Modifié par Biosman, 11 octobre 2012 - 03:00 .

[Blueprotoss]

Paulomedi wrote...

Broken Logic (in original endings);

Retarded Logic (in EC);

Plot Incosistence;

Disregard of characterization (Quarian fisionomy);

I can go on...

If thats the case then you would also have to go after ME1 and ME2. Btw on what Quarians look like without the suits is up to Bioware even if people had interpretations on deviantart since ME1 was released.

Biosman wrote...

the starchild should have been a KEEPER, that would have made an awesome twist, and kept with the lore of the game, i don't know why BW didn't go with that. But the synthesis end is too starmagic it could never have worked, control and destroy would have sufficed, both with Shep surviving. but whichever choice he made, there had to be a final showdown with Harbinger (post DLC after Leviathan) where shep learns how to defeat a Alpha Reaper (which cannot be controlled) single handed.

Bioware should have employed me [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

Ironically ME3 did keep to the lore and a lot more people wold have hated the keeper since twists apparently aren't that popular in Western RPGs.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 11 octobre 2012 - 03:04 .

[Maxster_]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

I do find it funny that some people freaked out about ME3 on that not ME1 and ME2.

Because ME3 is nonsensical fairytale. It is not a scifi, it is not even a coherent story - it is plain nonsense.
It easily beats even terminator from ME2, even before the endings.

ME3 is pretty coherent just like ME1 and ME2.  I'm pretty sure you aren't a fan of sci-fi to focus on minor details.

Yeah, yeah. Minor details they are.
Retarded intro with retarded characters?
Reaper chase minigame which completely broken the lore?
Crucible, which is mocking of science, engineering and common sense?
Udina betrays himself?
Priority:earth that is one big plothole, filled with slightly lesser plotholes?

It seems to me, that you have no idea what sci-fi is, what story is, what lore is(especially for scifi) and why work of fiction in scifi genre should be believeable, and why characters should have motive.

I'm not even saying about nonsensical and absurd bullcrap, which ending is.

Modifié par Maxster_, 11 octobre 2012 - 03:14 .

[deatharmonic]

Blueprotoss wrote...

deatharmonic wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

deatharmonic wrote...

I take issue with this because I did a whole BSc degree in Psychology, not just a few classes and if there's anything at all you should take away from Psychology its that you CANNOT reduce human behaviour down to a single factor. Which is what you've done in the OP by stating the reaction to the endings was based on expectation, totally ignoring a plethora of other factors. Personally I can't comprehend why anyone (even those who haven't studied psychology) would be so reductive. In fact its a major criticism of a lot of past research; that researchers have attempted to attribute behaviour to a singular cause. 

The reaction to the endings stem from numerous reasons and for each person those reasons could be totally different from the next persons. I can't say expectation didn't play a part for some people, it may well have. However, for me I know it didn't.

 

To be fair some people did have way too high expectations for ME3 that "killed" their experience just like thinking ME3 was the last ME installment and thinking the endings would be completely unique based on the choices in Shepard's trilogy.

Thats pretty much what I said in the bold & underlined bit. Of course it played a role for some people, but the OP is treating expectation as the only factor influencing people's perceptions; which is wrong because there are numerous other factors at play.

Expectations was actually one of the main causes especially when you look at what some people wanted to be in ME3 based on way too high expectations.

My god lol, I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying the OP is acting as though player expectation is the only factor which dictated the response to the endings.

[Iakus]

Paulomedi wrote...

And where they failed at most:

Suspension of disbelief. Lose it, and any form of fiction work/narrative utterly fails.

ME1 and 2 have their problems, but their narrative never suffers from this.

Heck I'd been warning about that since ME2's Project Lazarus. 

[Maxster_]

iakus wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

And where they failed at most:

Suspension of disbelief. Lose it, and any form of fiction work/narrative utterly fails.

ME1 and 2 have their problems, but their narrative never suffers from this.

Heck I'd been warning about that since ME2's Project Lazarus. 

Loss of narrative coherence.
ME2 was nowhere near that, even with terminator.

[Blueprotoss]

Maxster_ wrote...

Yeah, yeah. Minor details they are.
Retarded intro with retarded characters?
Reaper chase minigame which completely broken the lore?
Crucible, which is mocking of science, engineering and common sense?
Udina betrays himself?
Priority:earth that is one big plothole, filled with slightly lesser plotholes?

It seems to me, that you have no idea what sci-fi is, what story is, what lore is(especially for scifi) and why work of fiction in scifi genre should be believeable, and why characters should have motive.

I'm not even saying about nonsensical and absurd bullcrap, which ending is.

Minor details are minor just like how semantics is the reason you're upset.  Either way if you were a sci-fi fan then you won't be going crazy here just like how "plot holes" in ME3 would have to be present in ME1 and ME2 to be reasonable.

Maxster_ wrote...

iakus wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

And where they failed at most:

Suspension of disbelief. Lose it, and any form of fiction work/narrative utterly fails.

ME1 and 2 have their problems, but their narrative never suffers from this.

Heck I'd been warning about that since ME2's Project Lazarus. 

Loss of narrative coherence.
ME2 was nowhere near that, even with terminator.

Two wrongs don't make a right and its ironic when something happens in ME3 its wrong while its okay in ME2.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:35 .

[Blueprotoss]

Paulomedi wrote...

iakus wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

And where they failed at most:

Suspension of disbelief. Lose it, and any form of fiction work/narrative utterly fails.

ME1 and 2 have their problems, but their narrative never suffers from this.

Heck I'd been warning about that since ME2's Project Lazarus. 

But with Project Lazarus we see the science working: needles, medications,scalpels, plus cryopreservation in space, makes easier for our suspension of disbelief to work.

Shift to ME3: Crucible fires BOOOM Space Magic Synthetises/Control/Destroy the Reapers.

Project Lazarus is far from being "science" even when Shepard died, went through a planet's atmosphere, and crashing onto that same planet.  Btw space magic has always been a staple in ME because of a thing called Element Zero.

[Ithurael]

Maxster_ wrote...

Loss of narrative coherence.
ME2 was nowhere near that, even with terminator.

And at best the EC barley patches up that loss. smudboy - though I must say he can go a bit too in detail - tore the evac scene apart in addition to the rest of the EC.

[Blueprotoss]

Ithurael wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Loss of narrative coherence.
ME2 was nowhere near that, even with terminator.

And at best the EC barley patches up that loss. smudboy - though I must say he can go a bit too in detail - tore the evac scene apart in addition to the rest of the EC.

To be fair most of it was based on overreactions even when his analysis borrows a lot from the "nerdrage" from the Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars.

[ShepnTali]

Blueprotoss wrote...

RogueBot wrote...

I'm sure some people didn't like it because there weren't enough bat-nipples. Nothing's going to be liked by everyone. But generally speaking, TDKR was very well-received, unlike ME3's ending, Superman 64, the movie Gigli, etc.

You do know that you just contradicted yourself because there's no universal hatred for the ME3 endings unlike how there is mostly a universal hatred for Superman 64 and Gigli.

Ratimir wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

[If the endings were "poorly recieved" then the endings would have been completely redone instead of being explained.

If?

Are you seriously claiming that you don't think the endings were poorly received?

Seriously?

The endings didn't receive that much hate especially when you look at the small outrages with Dark Souls, Diablo 3, Zelda: Skyward Sword, Street Fighter x Tekken, RE: ORC, Dragon's Dogma, Hitman: Absolution, and the Tomb Raider reboot are to name a few that have occured this year.

Maxster_ wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

I do find it funny that some people freaked out about ME3 on that not ME1 and ME2.

Because ME3 is nonsensical fairytale. It is not a scifi, it is not even a coherent story - it is plain nonsense.
It easily beats even terminator from ME2, even before the endings.

ME3 is pretty coherent just like ME1 and ME2.  I'm pretty sure you aren't a fan of sci-fi to focus on minor details.

Roguebot didn't contradict himself. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Blueprotoss]

ShepnTali wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

RogueBot wrote...

I'm sure some people didn't like it because there weren't enough bat-nipples. Nothing's going to be liked by everyone. But generally speaking, TDKR was very well-received, unlike ME3's ending, Superman 64, the movieGigli, etc.

You do know that you just contradicted yourself because there's no universal hatred for the ME3 endings unlike how there is mostly a universal hatred for Superman 64 and Gigli.

Roguebot didn't contradict himself. You don't know what you're talking about.

Yet he/she did based on how there isn't a universal hatred for the ME3 endings even before the EC.  Also on a technicality their isn't a universal hatred for Superman 64 and Gigli because some people do like them while I'm not a part of that.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:51 .

[Maxster_]

Ithurael wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Loss of narrative coherence.
ME2 was nowhere near that, even with terminator.

And at best the EC barley patches up that loss. smudboy - though I must say he can go a bit too in detail - tore the evac scene apart in addition to the rest of the EC.

EC patches nothing. Teleporting Normandy, deserting Joker and retarded Harbringer actually shattered even more.