256 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaison1986]

Argentoid wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Please don't post videos by that dude on here. Please. Don't feed his ego.

But he's right...deal with it.

Wut? No.

He just wants his beloved "IT ending" to be considered canon through DLC. Therefore, he's angry and dissappointed.

IT is crap. HE needs to deal with it.

I agree that we need more ending content, such as an extension of Shepard's fate. Ain't gonna happen anyway. But please, no IT.

Truly, how so? Because I remember well that way back many acclaimed IT to be an vastly supperior ending idea then the original endings. I know IT is dead by now, but is far away from being crap, because I know I would have like it to have happened ratter then extended cut.

[CronoDragoon]

Jaison1986 wrote...
Truly, how so? Because I remember well that way back many acclaimed IT to be an vastly supperior ending idea then the original endings. I know IT is dead by now, but is far away from being crap, because I know I would have like it to have happened ratter then extended cut.

It would have been better than the original endings had it been thoroughly planned and implemented. Retconning is a different story.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

3DandBeyond wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
No it isn't an entirely different claim.  If you don't want a new ending then you like (or at least are satisfied) with the ending you have.  There is not a shred of evidence that this is true for the majority of the customers.

-Polaris

That isn't true at all. I've played many games the endings for which I did not like, and I asked for new endings for zero of them. It's a different claim they are making, and one that can easily be true: the number of fans still asking for new endings is the minority. People asking for new endings can spin it all they like, but since we know the number of people that bought the game and the amount of people actively asking for new endings, we can know that statistic.

That doesn't even imply that the rest - the ones not asking for new endings - like the ending.  But that isn't what the BW employees claimed.

In point of fact, I don't like the endings and I don't want a new one. Anyone in my category doesn't get included in yours.

Here's the thing.  You've accepted crap from other games and decided not to complain.  Here we have a situation where BW clearly stated things that never came true and then even included things they said they would not and their answer to a real consumer response and backlash was to add onto the mistake they already made.

Is it possible BW did some secret polling?  Well, hardly.  Given the fact that someone who didn't like the endings would have said they participated in a secret poll.

Point of fact, that yes some games have had bad endings-I don't generally play them more than once.  But then again, most games never had this scenario set up before where the ending was quite so crucial since the story was as well.  Nor have many had this whole "choices matter" milieu so that the endings seemingly would hinge upon everything you had done in the games-something that ME3 totally squashed at the end.

The issue becomes one of what is valid to complain about and what is a promise.  Content certainly cannot be considered off limits, nor can hype.

clearly its the audience's right to deny the creator the right to their own work.

why dont you trap mac walters in a log cabbin, break his legs, and force him to write your ending.  make him do it its your right as a firstworlder.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Jaison1986 wrote...

Argentoid wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Please don't post videos by that dude on here. Please. Don't feed his ego.

But he's right...deal with it.

Wut? No.

He just wants his beloved "IT ending" to be considered canon through DLC. Therefore, he's angry and dissappointed.

IT is crap. HE needs to deal with it.

I agree that we need more ending content, such as an extension of Shepard's fate. Ain't gonna happen anyway. But please, no IT.

Truly, how so? Because I remember well that way back many acclaimed IT to be an vastly supperior ending idea then the original endings. I know IT is dead by now, but is far away from being crap, because I know I would have like it to have happened ratter then extended cut.

You would have liked to have had the entire game be pointless and a non-ending?  That's what IT is.  "The entire story doesnt matter lol"  theory.

[IanPolaris]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

clearly its the audience's right to deny the creator the right to their own work.

why dont you trap mac walters in a log cabbin, break his legs, and force him to write your ending.  make him do it its your right as a firstworlder.

Actually if we want to think that ME1-3 is an RPG, then the creator DOESN'T have total control/right to his own work.  Any good dungeon master will tell you that.  This is something (about RPGs) that I think that Bioware has forgotten of late.

-Polaris

[Nerevar-as]

BirdsallSa wrote...

In any case, whether or not the ending was good or not is academic and it's a question that we are simply not qualified to answer. Who is? How about someone whose life is dedicated to making games? People like Hudson and Mac Walters are the ones who are judging their work. I heard from sources that those two made the ending entirely by themselves. They created between the two of them a masterpiece that all the haters on this forum put together couldn't have even fathomed. That is pure genius and they are the ones who I trust to tell me what's what when it comes to video games.

Bioware has the statistical evidence to prove that the ending haters are in the minority and Jessica Merizan has stated this herself and this is a documented fact. There need be no more discussion on the matter and I think I speak for everyone when I say this thread is toast.

Let me guess. Prometheus is the deepest SF movie ever and the fact that everything about it seemed retarded is a sign of genius we are too stupid to see.

Not even Alan Moore (I guess you´ve read something by him) could pull the concept behind the 10 last minutes of ME3. And if Merizan doesn´t give data, I´ll trust her as much as any other dev who lied through their teeth nefore and after release.

Oh, and the fact that I´d probably suck at writing doesn´t disqualify me to critizice any work. What´s required is the ability to read.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 25 février 2013 - 09:18 .

[CronoDragoon]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually if we want to think that ME1-3 is an RPG, then the creator DOESN'T have total control/right to his own work.  Any good dungeon master will tell you that.  This is something (about RPGs) that I think that Bioware has forgotten of late.

-Polaris

Table-top RPGs are really different from video game RPGs.

[spotlessvoid]

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 25 février 2013 - 09:23 .

[Jaison1986]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Jaison1986 wrote...

Argentoid wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Please don't post videos by that dude on here. Please. Don't feed his ego.

But he's right...deal with it.

Wut? No.

He just wants his beloved "IT ending" to be considered canon through DLC. Therefore, he's angry and dissappointed.

IT is crap. HE needs to deal with it.

I agree that we need more ending content, such as an extension of Shepard's fate. Ain't gonna happen anyway. But please, no IT.

Truly, how so? Because I remember well that way back many acclaimed IT to be an vastly supperior ending idea then the original endings. I know IT is dead by now, but is far away from being crap, because I know I would have like it to have happened ratter then extended cut.

You would have liked to have had the entire game be pointless and a non-ending?  That's what IT is.  "The entire story doesnt matter lol"  theory.

Why everybody aways says that? IT is not supposed to be the end. The idea of IT is that with DLC content Shepard would come out of the rubble after choosing destroy and go face the true final battle inside the citadel.

[CronoDragoon]

[quote]BirdsallSa wrote...
Bioware has the statistical evidence to prove that the ending haters are in the minority and Jessica Merizan has stated this herself and this is a documented fact. There need be no more discussion on the matter and I think I speak for everyone when I say this thread is toast.[/quote]
[/quote]

And just to be fair, no, neither BW nor Jessica stated this. They have no real way to tell the percentage of people who liked or disliked the endings, since the only thing we can say about the majority is that it is silent.

[IanPolaris]

CronoDragoon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually if we want to think that ME1-3 is an RPG, then the creator DOESN'T have total control/right to his own work.  Any good dungeon master will tell you that.  This is something (about RPGs) that I think that Bioware has forgotten of late.

-Polaris

Table-top RPGs are really different from video game RPGs.

No they aren't.  They are different because of the inherent limitation of the computer (instead of a DM) and people have always accepted this from the days of the earliest MUDs, but inherent in RPG gaming has ALWAYS been the inherent idea that the protagonist controls the story, and it is something that Bioware certainly adhered to (at least the illusion of it as much as humanly possible) in their CRPGs...even if some of those choices because of contraints had to be limited in some fashion.

The point is that in an RPG, the author/dev does NOT have total control.  If he (or she) tries, then it's not an RPG anymore but a story where you are allowed to play the game as the main character.  Mind you that's fine and there are many fine games with that model, but they aren't RPGs.

-Polaris

[DetcelferVisionary]

My personal experience:

1) Every poll I have EVER seen, including the ones in the Clever Noob video have ALL been unhappy with the ending. That's putting it mildly. Death Threats I would have thought, made that crystal clear at the passionate view points.
2) I am one of those people that dont particularly care for the ending and see it as a massive production failure due in part that we ALL KNOW they could have done better. Much better.
3) I have friends who never got the series because they heard about the ending. Now that's only 2 of them, but I'm sure that applies to more casual gamers. If people HEAR about a series ending horribly, will they be more inclined to purchase it? Not everyone buys up their games right after launch and some take their sweet time getting around to it.

So what I'm trying to say is, those who do not participate in these polls are the X factor in this discussion. It seems fool hardy to assume that those more casual gamers simply like the ending and thus the rest of the polls must be wrong. I'm inclined to believe that the polls would continue to be the same even if it reached a wider audience. IF NOT WORSE for Bioware. It has serious potential to make people never even buy the DLC or any Bioware game ever again. Casual gamers are protective with their money and much like customers wont return to a restraunt with bad service, they wont be buying a game that's ending felt hollow.

Modifié par DetcelferVisionary, 25 février 2013 - 10:10 .

[CronoDragoon]

IanPolaris wrote...
No they aren't.  They are different because of the inherent limitation of the computer (instead of a DM) and people have always accepted this from the days of the earliest MUDs, but inherent in RPG gaming has ALWAYS been the inherent idea that the protagonist controls the story, and it is something that Bioware certainly adhered to (at least the illusion of it as much as humanly possible) in their CRPGs...even if some of those choices because of contraints had to be limited in some fashion.

The point is that in an RPG, the author/dev does NOT have total control.  If he (or she) tries, then it's not an RPG anymore but a story where you are allowed to play the game as the main character.  Mind you that's fine and there are many fine games with that model, but they aren't RPGs.

-Polaris

Semantics aside, there is the key difference of the story changing in tabletops as the story progresses, because of an idea the DM likes and decides to implement, because a certain story gets boring, etc. Video game RPGS, up until patches and DLC, were always finished products, and in that sense the company had total control because they had total control over all the ways you could progress.

[Chris Priestly]

I would like to keep this thread open, but if insults and developer bashing continue, it will be closed. If you agree or disagree with the OP, you can be polite about it.

This is the only warning.

[Nerevar-as]

CronoDragoon wrote...

BirdsallSa wrote...
Bioware has the statistical evidence to prove that the ending haters are in the minority and Jessica Merizan has stated this herself and this is a documented fact. There need be no more discussion on the matter and I think I speak for everyone when I say this thread is toast.

And just to be fair, no, neither BW nor Jessica stated this. They have no real way to tell the percentage of people who liked or disliked the endings, since the only thing we can say about the majority is that it is silent.

She has, on twitter. Citing confidential numbers. So yeah, really reliable.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 25 février 2013 - 09:29 .

[Redbelle]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

 What? Mass Effect 3 is 100% perfect? 

Really?

As in not one, single teeny-tiny problem, issue or flaw  in the game at all? The game is the embodiment of perfection itself?

Here are a few of the top of my head:

-Face import bug
-Quest system is worse than previous games
-Tali's face
-Lack of variety in ending scenes (NOT endings themselves)
-Perfect ending requires multiplayer
-Collector Base = 10 War Assets
-EDI's cameltoe

I know I complain about Mass Effect 3, but that's mostly just my opinion, these however, are unjustifiable, period.

john_sheparrd wrote...

**** the haters 

Charming.

All valid point's. Thankfully many of them were addressed and.......... wait a minute?

Edi Had A CAMELTOE!................................

....................did she, actually kill a camel to get it?

but yeah, explaining how a game, that relied on player's importing their data to carry forward 'their' Shepard, did not work on release is going to be take some gumption to convince people that this was actually part of a grand master plan that only the chosen few are wise or cool enough can understand, and as such, was actually a clever scheme to make ME3, perfect.

Fortunately for those who understand the concept of perfect......... as well as the existance of relativity, I think it safe to say that Bird and Seiv, do think BW made the perfect game. Because everything BW didn't do that they did do in ME1 and 2 obviously was not to their standards or tastes.

Sadly, relatively speaking. What was stripped out of ME3 were thing's I actively enjoyed as those thing's served to further immerse me in the the world my Shepard inhabited.

So I'm glad those two had a good time. And I'll admit I had fun too. But I know I would have had more fun had I been given the key's to a tank and had some hacking thrown in to open up more explorable area's to further the risk/reward mechanic. ME3 is just to simplified to rate as the best ME game. For me, that accolade goes to ME2, with ME1 as a close second.

Modifié par Redbelle, 25 février 2013 - 09:28 .

[AlanC9]

IanPolaris wrote...


No they aren't.  They are different because of the inherent limitation of the computer (instead of a DM) and people have always accepted this from the days of the earliest MUDs, but inherent in RPG gaming has ALWAYS been the inherent idea that the protagonist controls the story, and it is something that Bioware certainly adhered to (at least the illusion of it as much as humanly possible) in their CRPGs...even if some of those choices because of contraints had to be limited in some fashion.

I don't think this is the right way to describe the process. The "protagonist" is the PC, not the player himself, and the player doesn't actually control the story. It's more like a collaboration.

[CronoDragoon]

Nerevar-as wrote...

She has, on twitter. Citing confidential numbers. So yeah, really reliable.

Can you show me the tweet? Because from what I saw she only refuted the claim that the majority of ME fans were asking for a new ending, not that the majority liked the endings.

[macrocarl]

IanPolaris wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

I loved the EC and feel that they listened to me. I'm not trying to controdictory but those who have not liked the ending don't like it but there are other groups of players out there (like me) who are super satisfied and happy with how things turned out. I think the plain truth of it is that you can't make everyone happy - I just happen to have lucked out this time around

Bully for you, but that so isn't the point.  There will be some that like the EC and some that loathe it.  What I thought we were talking about was Bioware's CLAIM that more people liked the post EC endings than didn't like them, and there isn't a shred of evidence for that near as I can tell (and a lot of evidence that strongly suggests that Bioware is lying).

-Polaris

I think what I was trying to get at is that the folks who didn't like the ending were super vocal and hence the polls floating around. I've seen a bunch of them so I know they're there but for those who really dug the endings (I can speak towards myself and all of my friends who've played through ME3 that liked/ loved the endings) we didn't bother with polls. I'm betting that that's true of others too. I don't know for sure but I feel that there's others out there.
So while the polls have numbers I wouldn't put too much weight on them being hard evidence. I hope that's clearer.

[AlanC9]

Nerevar-as wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

BirdsallSa wrote...
Bioware has the statistical evidence to prove that the ending haters are in the minority and Jessica Merizan has stated this herself and this is a documented fact. There need be no more discussion on the matter and I think I speak for everyone when I say this thread is toast.

And just to be fair, no, neither BW nor Jessica stated this. They have no real way to tell the percentage of people who liked or disliked the endings, since the only thing we can say about the majority is that it is silent

She has, on twitter. Citing confidential numbers. So yeah, really reliable.

"Ending haters are in the minority" is a pretty squishy statement in the first place. How much dislike do you have to have for the ending to be a "hater"? And majority of what? Fans? Who's a "fan," exactly?

[Nerevar-as]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

She has, on twitter. Citing confidential numbers. So yeah, really reliable.

Can you show me the tweet? Because from what I saw she only refuted the claim that the majority of ME fans were asking for a new ending, not that the majority liked the endings.

Haven´t got it bookmarked, try on the twitter thread the day the DLC was announced.

I can´t also think of anything other than a survey that would indicate most fans didn´t want any new endings. I haven´t seen any in the latest months.

[AlanC9]

Nerevar-as wrote...

I can´t also think of anything other than a survey that would indicate most fans didn´t want any new endings. I haven´t seen any in the latest months.

Is there a particular kind of new ending a majority of respondents wanted? I didn't generally follow those surveys.

[IanPolaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


No they aren't.  They are different because of the inherent limitation of the computer (instead of a DM) and people have always accepted this from the days of the earliest MUDs, but inherent in RPG gaming has ALWAYS been the inherent idea that the protagonist controls the story, and it is something that Bioware certainly adhered to (at least the illusion of it as much as humanly possible) in their CRPGs...even if some of those choices because of contraints had to be limited in some fashion.

I don't think this is the right way to describe the process. The "protagonist" is the PC, not the player himself, and the player doesn't actually control the story. It's more like a collaboration.

In an RPG (of any kind) collaboration is a very good way to describe the relationship between the PC and DM (tabletop or other related venues) and by extension to cRPGs the PC/Player and the Dev (who is effectively the DM).  Now it is true (this is where the limits I talked about come into play), that the game is a completely finished product when sold (ideally) and as such changing the world/campaign on-the-fly (as we sometimes see in tabletop) isn't an option, but this limitation has always been understood from the first days of MUDs and the first Moria-hack style games.

However, it was also understood that within these broad limits, the character was yours and how the game developed depended strongly on what you did (or in many cases failed to do).  Bioware from it's earliest days certainly understood that and understood that this choice (even if it was sometimes an illusionary choice) was essential for the RP experience.

I am not so sure that this is understood anymore.

-Polaris

[nos_astra]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

She has, on twitter. Citing confidential numbers. So yeah, really reliable.

Can you show me the tweet? Because from what I saw she only refuted the claim that the majority of ME fans were asking for a new ending, not that the majority liked the endings.

http://twitter.com/J...672159190630400

Modifié par klarabella, 25 février 2013 - 09:37 .

[3DandBeyond]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...


High EMS Destroy is a pretty happy ending.  they dont even explicitly tell you "geth gonna die"  anymore.

The Wrex decision, Maelin's data decision, and how the suicide mission went matter to how those slides turn out, as well as several me3 decisions.  (The raccni from me1 has a slide too if you saved her)  Technically kaiden/ashley decision is also reflected.

I think it would have been dumb if saving the council or sparing morinth determined whether you destroyed the reapers or not but thats just me.  (If you dont import GAW assets or do planet scanning the WA are balanced well arround enabling a happy ending or not based on your chioces and how many missions you play, including the dlc's.)

I was super confused at the ending but I feel leviathan answered my questions, though it should have been in the game to start with.  the information you recieve is so vital to how that story wraps up that its criminal they left it out. 

"I do need to know what the choices will do or are meant to achieve and
will achieve in order to seal the fate of the whole galaxy."   Extended cut tells you these things through investigate options and showing how things turn out.  it was super confusing at first but theres more information there now.  (i was pissed at the original endings but satisfied with extended cut)

"if one can't see the built in conflict here, then I don't know what to
say.  People are forced to live with the monsters that have been killing
and "eating" people they care about. "  The control ending is  supposed to evoke those feelings.  depending on your choices on rannoch, tuchunka, and your paragon/renegade score it implies that shepard uses the reapers to keep people in line or takes a passive approach.  yeah its kind of ****ed up but for the shepard who shot shiala in the head, shot mordin in the back, and shot legion in the face, it's fitting for THAT shepard to want to keep things in order as he sees fit.  (Though paragon points paint it a little more optimistic)  Control is the morality score ending.

Synthesis is interesting.  its controversial but it also builds on existing themes.  its about evolution, makes us like the protheans and takes it further than that.  The green eyes is intentional because they are similar concepts.  javik spends the whole game talking about how he cant understand these primitives, edi's entire storyline is about understanding organics and fear of them not understanding her, this is also mirrored in the geth arc, though i feel the quarian/geth peace was a copout (and is cheesy as hell)  Synthesis is a little silly looking but its built on underlying themes from the series.  Its for people who believe the reaper problem was FOR something important, for people who see that problem as real and significant.  its not for everyone.


The starkid NOT turning off the reapers wasnt a logic hole.  he said  "My solution wont work anymore"  but that means he wants a new one.  if he just shuts down his current one that causes a further problem in his plan.  He recognizes the flaw in his plan in that the knowledge to solve this problem exists and that organics CAN rise up against the reapers, but that doesnt mean he's going to give up.  it means he's accepting of a new solution to replace his current one, not that he's going to cut cold turkey.


I do think it would have shut alot of people up if they'd made a super high destroy ending have a slide with the geth and edi alive.  thats litterally the only thing that has people who want a happy ending NOT accept destroy fully.

I'm sorry but most of what you are saying is just overlooking what I said.  The last part first.  If something no longer solves a problem or does not work, then it is not a solution.  Period.  It doesn't mean I will keep trying to do this thing that doesn't work until something else happens.  And do you even understand the ludicrous nature of him understanding that organics are a threat and specifically that Shepard is and yet Shepard is told that mostly s/he must die to stop all this.  Your cold turkey statement has nothing to do with a logic device-he cannot keep trying to get 1 + 1 to equal 3.  He would never keep using something that is not a solution.

How does Synthesis make people like the Protheans?  And who would want to be like them?  You do understand they were all about really assimilating other races into their culture and controlling them, building their empire?  It is very much like the story of the Zha'til and it is anti-evolution and rather anti-diversity.  It also calls for the advancement of the races before they are culturally ready-perhaps you might want to look at what Mordin said about the Collectors to understand it better.  Also, it is forcing something into people's bodies without their knowledge and against what many would want to have happen.  It's also magical.  Synthesis comes from this unfounded and baseless notion that order is perfection and chaos is just bad or that evolution is bad.  Look on youtube for the Babylon 5 chaos and order ending to understand where a lot of this came from.  And then understand that chaos is not a bad thing and order is not a good thing-there are good and bad versions of both.  Evolution is about learning as well-it's not about being given or just handed things.  As described synthesis is also a form of molestation or assault.  And it bears some resemblance to eugenics.

Control is in no way moral.  People think it is because people are left alive, but understanding what logically should happen means it makes little sense.  Shepard assumes control (but Shepard is not alone-there are many voices there) and the galaxy is instantly supposed to stop fighting the reapers?  And no paragon doesn't make it better.  Shreaper says things that my Shepard would never say, the music is ominous, and the tone is not happy.  But then the reapers become the fix it men and galactic police.  Which Many would Shreaper protect?  Say the Krogan fight with the Salarians-who gets stepped on by a reaper?  Barring that, what about all those people being forced to live with the reaper variants (Bob, the neighborhood husk and his wife, the Banshee) as well as the reapers flying around with people goo in them?  It's horrific.  Real people would not accept that and would not just be all smiles because the relays work ok.  It's ridiculous.

Destroy is a mess.  I stand by this statement.  Sure, the slides in all of these things show some happy stuff-it's laughable.  You get a few slides of smiley faces and that's all it took and you're happy now.  And no, it wouldn't just take some slides of the geth or EDI for me-I wanted this mess to make some sense-it does not.  Sure, I have a real problem with being forced to kill EDI.  And your statement that Destroy doesn't even make it clear now that the geth die is part of the problem-Shepard can't know anything that really will happen in Destroy (or any of the choices).  It's juvenile and laughable.  And what we see happen in Destroy only makes it worse.  Shepard should die but doesn't, sorta maybe probably.  The explanation for what it will do is just ridiculous.  There will be losses but no more than have already occurred, WTF does that mean?

Delving into Leviathan, things only get worse.  Stupidest apex race ever.  They control people and then have a problem with synthetics killing organics, so they create a synthetic to find a solution and don't control him.  Yeah, that makes sense to me.  Then, this "kid" who isn't killing people but who needed to destroy his creators is given this idea of something that has never happened being inevitable.  Ok, so he was programmed by leviathan to believe that inevitably synthetics will destroy all organics and Shepard (who threatens his existence), must die in order to help him achieve his goal, but none of the choices even do that.  I vomited here.  None of the choices ever rules out synthetics existing that will destroy all organics if that even is an inevitability.  I think it's hogwash, but if what the kid (leviathan) believes is true then these choices don't stop it.  Destroy-synthetics will be created again and blah blah blah.  Synthesis-great, the synthetic stuff is now inside everyone, no matter if they wanted it or not, and who knows what it's doing?  And synthetics well, organic life may return one day so who knows if they'll start trying to kill new organic trees or fish?  Control-gee, organics exist-check.  Synthetics exist-check.  Time for a fight.  If it's inevitable there is no solution, no stopping it.