135 réponses à ce sujet

[matt-bassist]

Robosexual wrote...

Ghaleon80 wrote...

they won't but yes i would, cause it would show they finally got off of their high horse and listened to the outcry of many fans.

Please see:

Mass Effect: Extended Cut.

LOL! 

[ME859]

99% chance I would not. It would have to be something really amazing or special to get me to consider purchasing it otherwise. However for now I'm only interested in something that either gives us an alternate batch of endings, a non-genocidal destroy option to the crucible (sorry not to keen on MEHEM), and/or an expanded breath scene with both a reunion good ending and a funeral bittersweet ending the result of which is dependent on your EMS (though I'll settle for just the reunion).

The funny thing is if Bioware ever makes an ending I would grade as a B+ I would most likely go back and buy Leviathan and Omega since I would likely be motivated to have multiple ME3 playthroughs (right now I have 1 complete and two that are half finished). Currently I would say the EC is a C to C+ which for the conclusion to an epic trilogy might as well be an F-.

[Adomas]

I figure that if you Refuse, and then reapers win, it is because your EMS is too low.. With the best playthrough you can get ~7K.. So after a 100 DLC's and a million multiplayer char's promoted to war assets Bioware could release a new ending saying "Now you have enough EMS" , where you kick reaper daddybags conventionally using your 100K EMS.

One can dream

Modifié par Adomas, 13 janvier 2013 - 03:51 .

[KneeTheCap]

Argetfalcon wrote...

 I would

Also this is NOT a thread about adding a new ending, I'm simply asking would you buy more dlc if they did afterwards

I would too. I have the base game and From Ashes. That's it. There is absolutely no point to get the other DLC with the current ending, as there is no payoff. You know how the story ends, so why get any DLC if it does not happen after the ending?

An expansion, that I would buy too.

[Pheonix57]

Honestly? Yes. I would go back and buy all of it. I would even buy ME4 when it comes out.

[Lyrandori]

Nah, ME3 wouldn't benefit from just "new endings". The problem (for me anyway) with ME3 is that most of the rest of the game is too rushed as well and basically would need to be redone from the start. It would benefit from less auto-dialog, from more actual consequences coming from our past ME1 + ME2 decisions (especially Rachni from ME1's decision and Collector's Base from ME2). It would also benefit from another hub to role-play a bit more in and just have more actual (non fetch-quest) missions from, such as Omega or a bigger more explorable Citadel (in the veins of ME1's Citadel, perhaps even bigger this time).

It would also benefit from missions occurring on Illos, checking up on Vigil's status (still working? bring Javik there for more information, etc). Also, Palaven, we didn't see Palaven expect up in the sky of its moon, battled and burning (I wanted to be ON Palaven, BioWare, I.E. ON the SURFACE of Palaven to see Turian's architecture and society). And would have benefited from so much more. Also, Cerberus, where's my Renegade option to kill TIM myself and take over as Cerberus leader? No? Well screw it then.

And also, Wrex.

Modifié par Lyrandori, 13 janvier 2013 - 05:00 .

[Reth Shepherd]

magnetite wrote...

Part of this stuff that was dropped has to do with budget reasons. Like any business, you've got to stick within your budget. You can spend $50 million on a game, or $150 million in order to make everything perfect and please everyone. In a realistic world, that's just not possible.

Problem is, the stuff we're talking about here isn't flashy side stuff, it's stuff that was the core of the previous two games. Dropping it in favor of flashy side stuff isn't likely to make your core fans happy (I define "core fans" as the ones who word-of-mouth advertise you, buy all DLC, buy merchandise), and does little to improve your game. ME2 did just fine with the budget and resources they had. ME3 could have as well, had they continued to make the core game the focus rather than the flashy stuff.

[Seboist]

Priestly said there's not going to be anything else ending related.

Get over it already.

[AlanC9]

KneeTheCap wrote...

I would too. I have the base game and From Ashes. That's it. There is absolutely no point to get the other DLC with the current ending, as there is no payoff. You know how the story ends, so why get any DLC if it does not happen after the ending?

An expansion, that I would buy too.

So you'd only buy post-ending DLC, period? Even after a new ending, you wouldn 't buy new DLCs that aren't post-ending?

[Asch Lavigne]

The ending has no affect on my interest in any DLC, the actual DLC does.

Plus, yeah, EC. And we did get a new ending: Refusal.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 13 janvier 2013 - 07:10 .

[AlanC9]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

magnetite wrote...

Part of this stuff that was dropped has to do with budget reasons. Like any business, you've got to stick within your budget. You can spend $50 million on a game, or $150 million in order to make everything perfect and please everyone. In a realistic world, that's just not possible.

Problem is, the stuff we're talking about here isn't flashy side stuff, it's stuff that was the core of the previous two games. Dropping it in favor of flashy side stuff isn't likely to make your core fans happy (I define "core fans" as the ones who word-of-mouth advertise you, buy all DLC, buy merchandise), and does little to improve your game. ME2 did just fine with the budget and resources they had. ME3 could have as well, had they continued to make the core game the focus rather than the flashy stuff.

What are you talking about? ME3 carried as many choices over from ME1 and ME2 as any RPG sequel ever has. It certainly did far better than ME2 did at that..

Seriously; I don't know what you're actually referring to here.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 janvier 2013 - 07:13 .

[CheeseWithMold]

We really need some DLC to expand on some of the characters. I don't care about a new ending, I'm already satisfied with the ending that I have in mind, since Bioware doesn't bother to tell us what actually happens.

But again, if we need more DLC, it has to be about some of the other characters that barely got any screen time *cough*Garrus*cough*, *cough*Miranda*cough*.

[CaptainCommander]

I don't think anything they do will help with sales of more DLC or ME4. Having to buy a proper ending to a game is ridiculous! Imagine if before the end of a movie they switched it off and a guy came around and was like $10 for the ending please. Plus its a little too late to fix it. And everyone can say is a small minority they pardoning to etc but only 48% of people finished the game.

Nothing is gonna fix the game and its gonna bite them when they try sell ME4 unless they basically just make it a Space CoD. Which is what they tried to make ME3.

[Seival]

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yet the EC ended up confirming the way Control works even tho Bioware kept that a mystery in the original ending. So it is arbitrary...
Gee how lovely

Control wasn't a mystery in original ending. Many people just refused to believe it was true. Additional confirmation was required, and it was added with EC.

thank you for proving my point

Before EC release:
Some people were not sure if Control was true.
Some people were not sure if Shepard's survival in Destroy was mystery.

After EC release:
A lot of explanations were added to Control, proving it was true.
More uncertainty was added to Shepard's survival in Destroy, proving that Shepard's survival was a mystery.



...So, how exactly did I prove your point? Your question was answered in EC - Shepard's survival in Destroy is a mystery. No further explanations needed. If you happy with that or not - is completely different question.

Modifié par Seival, 13 janvier 2013 - 12:36 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yet the EC ended up confirming the way Control works even tho Bioware kept that a mystery in the original ending. So it is arbitrary...
Gee how lovely

Control wasn't a mystery in original ending. Many people just refused to believe it was true. Additional confirmation was required, and it was added with EC.

thank you for proving my point

Before EC release:
Some people were not sure if Control was true.
Some people were not sure if Shepard's survival in Destroy was mystery.

After EC release:
A lot of explanations were added to Control, proving it was true.
More uncertainty was added to Shepard's survival in Destroy, proving that Shepard's survival was a mystery.



...So, how exactly did I prove your point? Your question was answered in EC - Shepard's survival in Destroy is a mystery. No further explanations needed. If you happy with that or not - is completely different question.

i am going to regret this.

in the ec, shepard survival was made less mysterious. the memorial scene, in combination with the breathe scene, was a big hint, that shepards survival is true. the li who refuses to put the plate on the wall is a strong indicator.

only ITers were not sure that control was real ... and they still are not convinced.

[Seival]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yet the EC ended up confirming the way Control works even tho Bioware kept that a mystery in the original ending. So it is arbitrary...
Gee how lovely

Control wasn't a mystery in original ending. Many people just refused to believe it was true. Additional confirmation was required, and it was added with EC.

thank you for proving my point

Before EC release:
Some people were not sure if Control was true.
Some people were not sure if Shepard's survival in Destroy was mystery.

After EC release:
A lot of explanations were added to Control, proving it was true.
More uncertainty was added to Shepard's survival in Destroy, proving that Shepard's survival was a mystery.



...So, how exactly did I prove your point? Your question was answered in EC - Shepard's survival in Destroy is a mystery. No further explanations needed. If you happy with that or not - is completely different question.

i am going to regret this.

in the ec, shepard survival was made less mysterious. the memorial scene, in combination with the breathe scene, was a big hint, that shepards survival is true. the li who refuses to put the plate on the wall is a strong indicator.

only ITers were not sure that control was real ... and they still are not convinced.

Memorial scene in case of Destroy provides more questions than answers, which means BioWare confirmed survival mystery status.

You clearly didn't follow Control discussions well enough. Even Control supporters were not 100% sure it was really "Control". For example, some people thought Control was a "final order to the Reapers to go away, or fly into the Sun", and Shepard's death afterwards. Such interpretations contradicted with Control meaning, still people with those interpretations called themselves Control fans... People had doubts. But EC explained Control in perfect detail.

[Dr_Extrem]

Seival wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yet the EC ended up confirming the way Control works even tho Bioware kept that a mystery in the original ending. So it is arbitrary...
Gee how lovely

Control wasn't a mystery in original ending. Many people just refused to believe it was true. Additional confirmation was required, and it was added with EC.

thank you for proving my point

Before EC release:
Some people were not sure if Control was true.
Some people were not sure if Shepard's survival in Destroy was mystery.

After EC release:
A lot of explanations were added to Control, proving it was true.
More uncertainty was added to Shepard's survival in Destroy, proving that Shepard's survival was a mystery.



...So, how exactly did I prove your point? Your question was answered in EC - Shepard's survival in Destroy is a mystery. No further explanations needed. If you happy with that or not - is completely different question.

i am going to regret this.

in the ec, shepard survival was made less mysterious. the memorial scene, in combination with the breathe scene, was a big hint, that shepards survival is true. the li who refuses to put the plate on the wall is a strong indicator.

only ITers were not sure that control was real ... and they still are not convinced.

Memorial scene in case of Destroy provides more questions than answers, which means BioWare confirmed survival mystery status.

You clearly didn't follow Control discussions well enough. Even Control supporters were not 100% sure it was really "Control". For example, some people thought Control was a "final order to the Reapers to go away, or fly into the Sun", and Shepard's death afterwards. Such interpretations contradicted with Control meaning, still people with those interpretations called themselves Control fans... People had doubts. But EC explained Control in perfect detail.

just because it was not done well, does not mean, the intention was not there .. but crappy execution is something that does not exist in your mass effect head-canon.

[Seival]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yet the EC ended up confirming the way Control works even tho Bioware kept that a mystery in the original ending. So it is arbitrary...
Gee how lovely

Control wasn't a mystery in original ending. Many people just refused to believe it was true. Additional confirmation was required, and it was added with EC.

thank you for proving my point

Before EC release:
Some people were not sure if Control was true.
Some people were not sure if Shepard's survival in Destroy was mystery.

After EC release:
A lot of explanations were added to Control, proving it was true.
More uncertainty was added to Shepard's survival in Destroy, proving that Shepard's survival was a mystery.



...So, how exactly did I prove your point? Your question was answered in EC - Shepard's survival in Destroy is a mystery. No further explanations needed. If you happy with that or not - is completely different question.

i am going to regret this.

in the ec, shepard survival was made less mysterious. the memorial scene, in combination with the breathe scene, was a big hint, that shepards survival is true. the li who refuses to put the plate on the wall is a strong indicator.

only ITers were not sure that control was real ... and they still are not convinced.

Memorial scene in case of Destroy provides more questions than answers, which means BioWare confirmed survival mystery status.

You clearly didn't follow Control discussions well enough. Even Control supporters were not 100% sure it was really "Control". For example, some people thought Control was a "final order to the Reapers to go away, or fly into the Sun", and Shepard's death afterwards. Such interpretations contradicted with Control meaning, still people with those interpretations called themselves Control fans... People had doubts. But EC explained Control in perfect detail.

just because it was not done well, does not mean, the intention was not there .. but crappy execution is something that does not exist in your mass effect head-canon.

Memorial scene was well done, and intention was to confirm survival mystery status (in case of Destroy), believe me.

You just expected to receive "yes" or "no" answer, and still refuse to accept "maybe" concept.

[Dr_Extrem]

Seival wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yet the EC ended up confirming the way Control works even tho Bioware kept that a mystery in the original ending. So it is arbitrary...
Gee how lovely

Control wasn't a mystery in original ending. Many people just refused to believe it was true. Additional confirmation was required, and it was added with EC.

thank you for proving my point

Before EC release:
Some people were not sure if Control was true.
Some people were not sure if Shepard's survival in Destroy was mystery.

After EC release:
A lot of explanations were added to Control, proving it was true.
More uncertainty was added to Shepard's survival in Destroy, proving that Shepard's survival was a mystery.



...So, how exactly did I prove your point? Your question was answered in EC - Shepard's survival in Destroy is a mystery. No further explanations needed. If you happy with that or not - is completely different question.

i am going to regret this.

in the ec, shepard survival was made less mysterious. the memorial scene, in combination with the breathe scene, was a big hint, that shepards survival is true. the li who refuses to put the plate on the wall is a strong indicator.

only ITers were not sure that control was real ... and they still are not convinced.

Memorial scene in case of Destroy provides more questions than answers, which means BioWare confirmed survival mystery status.

You clearly didn't follow Control discussions well enough. Even Control supporters were not 100% sure it was really "Control". For example, some people thought Control was a "final order to the Reapers to go away, or fly into the Sun", and Shepard's death afterwards. Such interpretations contradicted with Control meaning, still people with those interpretations called themselves Control fans... People had doubts. But EC explained Control in perfect detail.

just because it was not done well, does not mean, the intention was not there .. but crappy execution is something that does not exist in your mass effect head-canon.

Memorial scene was well done, and intention was to confirm survival mystery status (in case of Destroy), believe me.

You just expected to receive "yes" or "no" answer, and still refuse to accept "maybe" concept.

absolutely not.

the breathe scene alone was more than enough to make shepards survival in high ems destroy a mystery. further mystification was not needed.
 
the memorial scene is still not clear (like "yes definatly") but the intention to show that sheps survival is highly propable, is clear. they reacted to the fanbase' demand for destroy-shep clarity and added this little notion to the memorial scene. it is perfectly clear that shepard survived, if liara is your bondmate - "a connection that transcends time and space".

they just did not had the guts to walk the road to the end. also, it would have crushed IT - something bioware wanted to avoid - most ITers are still loyal fans ... pissing them off is not a sound strategy (see what happened after the IT-thread was closed).

[Dragoonlordz]

iakus wrote...

111987 wrote...

No. It would be incredibly stupid and would look very bad for Bioware to change their ending not once, but twice. They would rightfully be considered a joke if they did that. Yes yes, some people think they are a joke now, but Bioware is still one of the best story producing developers in the industry.

They'd have to change it once to change it twice 

Besides, nothing says they can't add more endings.  Options are what RPGs are all about after all.

They are constantly called liars on here by people as ammunition against Bioware, that is reason enough to not give any new endings. The only way for them to not be liars is to tell the truth and it has to be from the last comment they made which was no new endings, if they go from any comment prior to that last one then that makes their last one a lie too which continues to make them lying and in turn give people more ammunition to use against them which they should not give.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 janvier 2013 - 04:03 .

[Seival]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Seival wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yet the EC ended up confirming the way Control works even tho Bioware kept that a mystery in the original ending. So it is arbitrary...
Gee how lovely

Control wasn't a mystery in original ending. Many people just refused to believe it was true. Additional confirmation was required, and it was added with EC.

thank you for proving my point

Before EC release:
Some people were not sure if Control was true.
Some people were not sure if Shepard's survival in Destroy was mystery.

After EC release:
A lot of explanations were added to Control, proving it was true.
More uncertainty was added to Shepard's survival in Destroy, proving that Shepard's survival was a mystery.



...So, how exactly did I prove your point? Your question was answered in EC - Shepard's survival in Destroy is a mystery. No further explanations needed. If you happy with that or not - is completely different question.

i am going to regret this.

in the ec, shepard survival was made less mysterious. the memorial scene, in combination with the breathe scene, was a big hint, that shepards survival is true. the li who refuses to put the plate on the wall is a strong indicator.

only ITers were not sure that control was real ... and they still are not convinced.

Memorial scene in case of Destroy provides more questions than answers, which means BioWare confirmed survival mystery status.

You clearly didn't follow Control discussions well enough. Even Control supporters were not 100% sure it was really "Control". For example, some people thought Control was a "final order to the Reapers to go away, or fly into the Sun", and Shepard's death afterwards. Such interpretations contradicted with Control meaning, still people with those interpretations called themselves Control fans... People had doubts. But EC explained Control in perfect detail.

just because it was not done well, does not mean, the intention was not there .. but crappy execution is something that does not exist in your mass effect head-canon.

Memorial scene was well done, and intention was to confirm survival mystery status (in case of Destroy), believe me.

You just expected to receive "yes" or "no" answer, and still refuse to accept "maybe" concept.

absolutely not.

the breathe scene alone was more than enough to make shepards survival in high ems destroy a mystery. further mystification was not needed.
 
the memorial scene is still not clear (like "yes definatly") but the intention to show that sheps survival is highly propable, is clear. they reacted to the fanbase' demand for destroy-shep clarity and added this little notion to the memorial scene. it is perfectly clear that shepard survived, if liara is your bondmate - "a connection that transcends time and space".

they just did not had the guts to walk the road to the end. also, it would have crushed IT - something bioware wanted to avoid - most ITers are still loyal fans ... pissing them off is not a sound strategy (see what happened after the IT-thread was closed).

Since most Destroyers didn't get it, further mystification was required.

I'm asking you: "did Shepard survive in Destroy?". And I already know the only correct answer you can give without using any speculations. The correct answer is "maybe".

Please, do not limit yourself with just "black and white" or "one and zero". BioWare message was clear enough. So, be prepared for never getting any further answers on the matter. Try to accept the one you already have.

Modifié par Seival, 13 janvier 2013 - 04:22 .