txgoldrush wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
Some people only support ME3 because they love misery. They usually seem to defend it by trying to insult people who dislike it, which speaks volumes about them.
As it currently stands, there is no Misery in the ME3 endings, so I don't know what you're talking about.
except for low EMS.....lol
Arcian wrote...
I'm sorry, but how have they NOT acknowledged it?
Yes but you can forgive ME1 and ME2 because ultimately people enjoyed those games and enjoyed the endings, had ME3's ending been well written people would have forgiven its faults too, but it was not, so all ME3 is, is problem piled on top of problem.txgoldrush wrote...
DinoSteve wrote...
*sorry double post.GimmeDaGun wrote...
FlamingBoy wrote...
GimmeDaGun wrote...
All three games have tons of issues. Yet peopel only bash ME3 because they can't live happily ever after with their nerd-fantasy waifus... yeah, I'm talking abou the ending.
This myth really needs to die
snip
While I do agree that some people's complaints is why can't we have a happy ending, I would have to say that I find most of the complaints are about the bad writing, various plot holes and the breaking of established lore.
Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.
Yes and no. On the large scale the EC paints things in rather too cheesily a positive light but there's nothing to gain satisfaction with at personal character level beyond headcanon.Eterna5 wrote...
Some people only support ME3 because they love misery. They usually seem to defend it by trying to insult people who dislike it, which speaks volumes about them.
As it currently stands, there is no Misery in the ME3 endings, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Modifié par Reorte, 01 juin 2013 - 10:09 .
Redbelle wrote...
Arcian wrote...
I'm sorry, but how have they NOT acknowledged it?
I think he meant to say that the fans should acknowledge it. And there is no doubt that the ME trilogy is a great undertaking.......
Like a refreshing spring walk through the countryside watching families on the same walk pass by with children running around and dog owners with the lead off watching their pet's frolic in the fields....... it's all good!
Right up to the point where you get home and discover someone's stolen your car.
The games are good. The endings of ME1 and 2, likewise good. ME3's ending does not stack up to either the other endings, or the gameplay in general, or even the narrative.
And that is the point of the backlash. BW attempted something that fans hated in a franchise they loved. If the fan's didn't love it then they would not have hated the ending that badly.
The OP seems to want to change the argument from, 'BW did not meet their own standards' to 'BW didn't do anything wrong'.
And as gamer's that is not a way of thinking we can afford to fall into. Forget being gamers for a moment. We are consumers who buy product. As consumers and fans, we actively WANT to buy mor from BW in the future because they make great content. But to just pat them on the back everytime they release something is irresponsible. BW need to know what they did right, and what they did wrong so they can continue to develop games along the lines of consumer expectation. (Note, I'm not talking about making games according to 'EXACTLY' what the fans demand. There is a difference between expectation and pressuring).
Not only does this increase the likilihood of consumer satisfaction, but BW shift's more unit's and gains greater word of mouth advertising.
Simply put, BW needs to the fans to be vocal in their support, but also in their critisism. A company needs consumer feedback. And as for the scale of the backlash. It was indicative of the love of the franchise that so many people who loved the franchise, ultimately expressed disappointment over the ending. If they didn't care of ME...... if they didn't actively LOVE it, then they would have stayed silent in their critisism. And we cannot forget that the ending's were not the only thing to be critisised.
Omega was frowned on for being to........ linear.
Javiks DLC was frowned on for coming across as core content, stripped out to promote a £30 core content game into a £45 day one transaction, thereby boosting early day sale figures. (It's a common practice. And the number's aren't accurate there, but you get the point).
I STILL get stuck in the Normandy cockpit if I step on the wrong section of flooring!!! (ARRRGGGGHHHHH)!!!
So yes, ME3 is a good game. But let's not pretend it's the best an ME game can be. That accolade largely goes to ME2.
DinoSteve wrote...
Yes but you can forgive ME1 and ME2 because ultimately people enjoyed those games and enjoyed the endings, had ME3's ending been well written people would have forgiven its faults too, but it was not, so all ME3 is, is problem piled on top of problem.txgoldrush wrote...
DinoSteve wrote...
*sorry double post.GimmeDaGun wrote...
FlamingBoy wrote...
GimmeDaGun wrote...
All three games have tons of issues. Yet peopel only bash ME3 because they can't live happily ever after with their nerd-fantasy waifus... yeah, I'm talking abou the ending.
This myth really needs to die
snip
While I do agree that some people's complaints is why can't we have a happy ending, I would have to say that I find most of the complaints are about the bad writing, various plot holes and the breaking of established lore.
Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.
Modifié par txgoldrush, 01 juin 2013 - 10:28 .
Reorte wrote...
Yes and no. On the large scale the EC paints things in rather too cheesily a positive light but there's nothing to gain satisfaction with at personal character level beyond headcanon.Eterna5 wrote...
Some people only support ME3 because they love misery. They usually seem to defend it by trying to insult people who dislike it, which speaks volumes about them.
As it currently stands, there is no Misery in the ME3 endings, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Reorte wrote...
Some people only support ME3 because they love misery. They usually seem to defend it by trying to insult people who dislike it, which speaks volumes about them.FlamingBoy wrote...
GimmeDaGun wrote...
All three games have tons of issues. Yet peopel only bash ME3 because they can't live happily ever after with their nerd-fantasy waifus... yeah, I'm talking abou the ending.
This myth really needs to die
Various aspects of the game OK but it had none of the life of the previous games and the rushing was all too visible too often. Whilst it had the best moment in the trilogy (Tuchanka) the writing was in general even worse than the others and because of the godawful timing of when it hit its lowest depths can't be rescued by the good points, and so it drags everything else down with it whereas the other two succeeded despite those issues.
Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 01 juin 2013 - 11:26 .
Redbelle wrote...
Arcian wrote...
I'm sorry, but how have they NOT acknowledged it?
I think he meant to say that the fans should acknowledge it. And there is no doubt that the ME trilogy is a great undertaking.......
Like a refreshing spring walk through the countryside watching families on the same walk pass by with children running around and dog owners with the lead off watching their pet's frolic in the fields....... it's all good!
Right up to the point where you get home and discover someone's stolen your car.
The games are good. The endings of ME1 and 2, likewise good. ME3's ending does not stack up to either the other endings, or the gameplay in general, or even the narrative.
And that is the point of the backlash. BW attempted something that fans hated in a franchise they loved. If the fan's didn't love it then they would not have hated the ending that badly.
The OP seems to want to change the argument from, 'BW did not meet their own standards' to 'BW didn't do anything wrong'.
And as gamer's that is not a way of thinking we can afford to fall into. Forget being gamers for a moment. We are consumers who buy product. As consumers and fans, we actively WANT to buy mor from BW in the future because they make great content. But to just pat them on the back everytime they release something is irresponsible. BW need to know what they did right, and what they did wrong so they can continue to develop games along the lines of consumer expectation. (Note, I'm not talking about making games according to 'EXACTLY' what the fans demand. There is a difference between expectation and pressuring).
Not only does this increase the likilihood of consumer satisfaction, but BW shift's more unit's and gains greater word of mouth advertising.
Simply put, BW needs to the fans to be vocal in their support, but also in their critisism. A company needs consumer feedback. And as for the scale of the backlash. It was indicative of the love of the franchise that so many people who loved the franchise, ultimately expressed disappointment over the ending. If they didn't care of ME...... if they didn't actively LOVE it, then they would have stayed silent in their critisism. And we cannot forget that the ending's were not the only thing to be critisised.
Omega was frowned on for being to........ linear.
Javiks DLC was frowned on for coming across as core content, stripped out to promote a £30 core content game into a £45 day one transaction, thereby boosting early day sale figures. (It's a common practice. And the number's aren't accurate there, but you get the point).
I STILL get stuck in the Normandy cockpit if I step on the wrong section of flooring!!! (ARRRGGGGHHHHH)!!!
So yes, ME3 is a good game. But let's not pretend it's the best an ME game can be. That accolade largely goes to ME2.
Reorte wrote...
Some people only support ME3 because they love misery. They usually seem to defend it by trying to insult people who dislike it, which speaks volumes about them.FlamingBoy wrote...
GimmeDaGun wrote...
All three games have tons of issues. Yet peopel only bash ME3 because they can't live happily ever after with their nerd-fantasy waifus... yeah, I'm talking abou the ending.
This myth really needs to die
Various aspects of the game OK but it had none of the life of the previous games and the rushing was all too visible too often. Whilst it had the best moment in the trilogy (Tuchanka) the writing was in general even worse than the others and because of the godawful timing of when it hit its lowest depths can't be rescued by the good points, and so it drags everything else down with it whereas the other two succeeded despite those issues.
txgoldrush wrote...
Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.
) that drastically alter the way the universe and the people living in it works..... I could go on....Modifié par FlamingBoy, 01 juin 2013 - 11:45 .
txgoldrush wrote...
The EC is well written...you either didn't get it, or didn't like what it has to say.
ioannisdenton wrote...
Redbelle wrote...
Arcian wrote...
I'm sorry, but how have they NOT acknowledged it?
I think he meant to say that the fans should acknowledge it. And there is no doubt that the ME trilogy is a great undertaking.......
Like a refreshing spring walk through the countryside watching families on the same walk pass by with children running around and dog owners with the lead off watching their pet's frolic in the fields....... it's all good!
Right up to the point where you get home and discover someone's stolen your car.
The games are good. The endings of ME1 and 2, likewise good. ME3's ending does not stack up to either the other endings, or the gameplay in general, or even the narrative.
And that is the point of the backlash. BW attempted something that fans hated in a franchise they loved. If the fan's didn't love it then they would not have hated the ending that badly.
The OP seems to want to change the argument from, 'BW did not meet their own standards' to 'BW didn't do anything wrong'.
And as gamer's that is not a way of thinking we can afford to fall into. Forget being gamers for a moment. We are consumers who buy product. As consumers and fans, we actively WANT to buy mor from BW in the future because they make great content. But to just pat them on the back everytime they release something is irresponsible. BW need to know what they did right, and what they did wrong so they can continue to develop games along the lines of consumer expectation. (Note, I'm not talking about making games according to 'EXACTLY' what the fans demand. There is a difference between expectation and pressuring).
Not only does this increase the likilihood of consumer satisfaction, but BW shift's more unit's and gains greater word of mouth advertising.
Simply put, BW needs to the fans to be vocal in their support, but also in their critisism. A company needs consumer feedback. And as for the scale of the backlash. It was indicative of the love of the franchise that so many people who loved the franchise, ultimately expressed disappointment over the ending. If they didn't care of ME...... if they didn't actively LOVE it, then they would have stayed silent in their critisism. And we cannot forget that the ending's were not the only thing to be critisised.
Omega was frowned on for being to........ linear.
Javiks DLC was frowned on for coming across as core content, stripped out to promote a £30 core content game into a £45 day one transaction, thereby boosting early day sale figures. (It's a common practice. And the number's aren't accurate there, but you get the point).
I STILL get stuck in the Normandy cockpit if I step on the wrong section of flooring!!! (ARRRGGGGHHHHH)!!!
So yes, ME3 is a good game. But let's not pretend it's the best an ME game can be. That accolade largely goes to ME2.
Of course bioware did not meet their standards, i said the original ending was abysmal while the Ec way better, the war assets were kinda pointless, no climax, no big concequences hurt the experience. But the backlash is beyond reasoning. Me3 has redeeming values.
People forget that the interaction between characters is extremely well done ; one reason we play ME games is for our beloved characters.
People forget that renegade decisions are best handled in Me3.
People bypass that the combat while actiony is great, i only dislike the lighting fast cooldowns and that insanity is too easy.
Everyone was touched by anderson's death and the dialogue he has with shepard. Everyone cheered at mordin. Everyone loved Jack. Everyone loved Rannoch mission.
We already made our point.
on the contrary i liked the crucible idea, if only the catalyst was absent or at least it had not assumed the image of that kid from vancouver..FlamingBoy wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.
It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.
Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility
The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series
Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.
And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.
It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.
I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.
This is one of the major issues, that some how the ending was to "deep" for my tiny little brain I somehow got overwhelmed. That is somehow "my" fault that I did not understand the endings.DinoSteve wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
The EC is well written...you either didn't get it, or didn't like what it has to say.
Oh dear Lord! it wasn't it really really wasn't.
Not the main thesis of what I previously wrote, but I will play:ioannisdenton wrote...
on the contrary i liked the crucible idea, if only the catalyst was absent or at least it had not assumed the image of that kid from vancouver..FlamingBoy wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.
It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.
Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility
The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series
Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.
And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.
It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.
I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.
FlamingBoy wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.
It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.
Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility
The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series
Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.
And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.
It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.
I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.
Great post good sir. Thank you.FlamingBoy wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.
It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.
Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility
The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series
Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.
And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.
It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.
I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.
Modifié par Eterna5, 01 juin 2013 - 07:12 .
Linkenski wrote...
Let me rewrite topic title for you bro.
It should have said "ME3 is a good game, but not as part of the ME franchise. Bioware shouldn't acknowledge it"
No me3 problems go beyond me simply not likeing it. The game story is broken at its very core.Eterna5 wrote...
The Narrative in ME3 is perfectly plausable, albeit a tad contrived. You just don't like it.
Modifié par FlamingBoy, 02 juin 2013 - 12:40 .
Thanks mateDubozz wrote...
Great post good sir. Thank you.FlamingBoy wrote...
txgoldrush wrote...
Which ME1 and ME2 also had but they choose to ignore.
Its not about what game did have and what game didn't have. The point is me3 had issues to the point that my understanding of the universe was broken. It is irrelevant if me1 or 2 had issues or even if it was worse in those games.
It didn't matter in me1 and 2 because the narrative was plausible at the end of the day all of it didn't really matter, regardless if badly written or not.
Me3 depended on the narrative to a huge degree to the point where its the only thing that matters, For example the crucible in all its various explanations does not make sense, a secret hidden weapon found on mars (convient) which we don't know how it works built by a contingency of races (why build a portion of a weapon? That in itself does not make any sense) over the eons, the weapon itself has 3 uniques functions (how those functions work, who cares right
but even my head is about to explode from the maddness of a game in a series that prides it self on plasibility
The crucible is the main driving point of the plot it moved the story forward. The story of all 3 games depended on me3, so as a result the entire series depended on the one game that didn't even remotely reach peoples expectations. That is the problem, me1 and me2 are the struggles we as players went through with our friends (shepard, garrus, talli, ect) we still enjoyed it despite its flaws. But in me3 those flaws are so bad so detrimental to our experience that it wrecked the experience for the entire series
Bioware made a series on emotional investment, the game depended on the player to care about what was happening, otherwise it would have been a lesser experience. But when it was time for the emotional payoff, when it was time for bioware to deliever on the ever so important promise "your choices will matter" they floundered.
And that is why people could not handle mass effect 3, it was a betrayal of the gravest kind....It did not matter that me2 and 1 had bad writing because it was not detrimental to the game... Me3 on the hand failed when it should have succeeded.
It broke the silent contract that every "artist" has with its audience. In this case they simply could not wrap up the experience in anyway that made the "sacrifices" we went through worth it.
I think that sums it up nicely..... It just was not worth it.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
