AlanC9 wrote...
Second, I suspect that a lot of the staff are hipster elitists like me who enjoy moral ambiguity, irony, downer endings, and so forth.
Modifié par KaiserShep, 24 juin 2013 - 04:08 .
Modifié par brettc893, 24 juin 2013 - 04:13 .
brettc893 wrote...
Jesus, this thread just took off, 10 pages in less than a day?
That's a record for me.
AlanC9 wrote...
I've read on the DA3 board that David Gaider says peace at Rannoch shouldn't have been an option. I didn't see that for myself, though.
AlanC9 wrote...
My hypothesis is that it's a combination of two things. First, Bio ended up believing their own press releases, and convinced themselves that their games are all about making hard choices rather than getting out of making the hard choices. Second, I suspect that a lot of the staff are hipster elitists like me who enjoy moral ambiguity, irony, downer endings, and so forth.
Eterna5 wrote...
I find it weird how the Last of us has an ending that is arguably worse than ME3's and yet people herald it as the best game of this generation.
Guess Bioware fans are just weird.
mopotter wrote...
BioWare did a wonderful job of pulling me into their world and story. On topic, I knew the 2nd time I played the game and realized that no matter what I did the choices I had made didn't matter and the best i could hope for was a charred body and a memorial wall where someone in my group suddenly has psychic abilities that they didn't have before then, telling them that Shepard wasn't dead. And I realized it could have been so much more than that.
mopotter wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
I find it weird how the Last of us has an ending that is arguably worse than ME3's and yet people herald it as the best game of this generation.
Guess Bioware fans are just weird.
Well, I'm not buying "The last of us". If I had known ME3's ending ahead of time, I would not have bought it either.
One thing, The Last of us is not the 3rd game of a series where you played the main character for years and like a good book, replayed the first game over and over until the 2nd one came out and then you played the 1st and 2nd one over and over until the 3rd one came out, to the point where you knew each one of the characters and even the briefly met ones like Gianna Parasini.
BioWare did a wonderful job of pulling me into their world and story. On topic, I knew the 2nd time I played the game and realized that no matter what I did the choices I had made didn't matter and the best i could hope for was a charred body and a memorial wall where someone in my group suddenly has psychic abilities that they didn't have before then, telling them that Shepard wasn't dead. And I realized it could have been so much more than that.
Necanor wrote...
Dr. Akairos wrote...
I actually like the destroy ending. It's what Sheppards goal was from game one and at the end of it all you are finally released from the chains of responsibility. Chains that weigh as much as an entire galaxy.
Agreed, the fact that you have to sacrifice the Geth and EDI in this ending actually makes it deeper and more interesting.
NeonFlux117 wrote...
In short. It don't look good bioware. It don't look good.
Guest_LineHolder_*
CronoDragoon wrote...
NeonFlux117 wrote...
In short. It don't look good bioware. It don't look good.
This sentiment is new and original.
I said from day one that paid ending DLC was the way to go. BioWare has an incentive to make new endings and fans get new endings that have actual resources allocated to them. Alas, the "we want it free and we want it now" contingent was far louder.
Exactly. That's at least why I haven't "gotten over it". If all there is left are those that liked the original endings and stood by BW, then they will forget about their mistakes, do worse next game, and end up on the chopping block. Westwood and CnC is not a repeat I'd like to see for this franchise.iakus wrote...
CrutchCricket wrote...
gg Bioware you manipulative bastards. You won, we lost, and gaming will now be poorer for it. For the precedent you set, even if you did so unknowingly and with truly good intentions.
And sadly, the Montreal team will pay the price when the next Mass Effect game is met with suspicion and cynicism. They didn't cause the problem, but now they're left holding the bag.
That precedent would've hardly been more favorable. Instead of sending a message of "it's ok to to ruin your franchise you'll get free press out of it and the chance to look better than you actually are" you'd instead send that but also "and you can make more money too!"CronoDragoon wrote...
I said from day one that paid ending DLC was the way to go. BioWare has an incentive to make new endings and fans get new endings that have actual resources allocated to them. Alas, the "we want it free and we want it now" contingent was far louder.
Do not feed, folks.CronoDragoon wrote...
NeonFlux117 wrote...
In short. It don't look good bioware. It don't look good.
This sentiment is new and original.
I said from day one that paid ending DLC was the way to go. BioWare has an incentive to make new endings and fans get new endings that have actual resources allocated to them. Alas, the "we want it free and we want it now" contingent was far louder.
LineHolder wrote...
Flame bait alert.
CrutchCricket wrote...
That precedent would've hardly been more favorable. Instead of sending a message of "it's ok to to ruin your franchise you'll get free press out of it and the chance to look better than you actually are" you'd instead send that but also "and you can make more money too!"
The precedent is that you can create controversy by making a part of your game bad and ride the storm to better press. Then to close it, you just release a half-assed "fix" DLC that barely addresses the problems (but is merely perceived to) and gain additional rep as a company that cares. The direct loss money is offset by the boost in brand recognition.CronoDragoon wrote...
Who said anything about making money? You do realize that they lost money making the EC, and that a paid DLC might only cover their costs? Moreover, it's counterintuitive to imagine that a company would be willing to go through all that bad PR just to make money on a DLC, since they would have made money on DLC anyway. There is no precedent being set.
BattleCop88 wrote...
Man, reading Robosexual's posts sometimes make me wonder whether he's paid. EA has been known to do that. I just hope he doesn't convince BW to continue down the same pseudo-intellectual bs path.
CrutchCricket wrote...
The precedent is that you can create controversy by making a part of your game bad and ride the storm to better press. Then to close it, you just release a half-assed "fix" DLC that barely addresses the problems (but is merely perceived to) and gain additional rep as a company that cares. The direct loss money is offset by the boost in brand recognition.
Even if Bioware wasn't thinking along those lines and were just trying to make the most of an accidental bad situation, less scrupulous ****s down the line can interpret it that way and will try to pull this off if they can.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 24 juin 2013 - 05:48 .
KaiserShep wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Second, I suspect that a lot of the staff are hipster elitists like me who enjoy moral ambiguity, irony, downer endings, and so forth.
If that is indeed the case, my hope in a decent addition to the franchise is greatly diminished. The last thing Mass Effect needs is another ending that looks like Spike Jonze and M. Night Shyamalan melded their minds into one horrible artsty contortion of logic.
The precendent of paid DLC would be the same, except there'd be even more of an incentive for other to pull this **** because they could also make some money off it (or at least not incurr the loss the cost of the "fix" DLC would bring). The way it'd be worse for gamers is obvious.CronoDragoon wrote...
Wait, are we talking about the EC now? Because I thought we were talking about the precedent of paid DLC, and how it would have been a better compromise than what we got?
If we're talking about the EC, then no precedent has been set: when you hear people discussing ME3 on the internet, are they discussing how bad the ending was or how great BW was for releasing the EC? It's mostly A.
Too many people did. And your rep isn't based on what you fixed but what people perceive you fixed and the fact that they perceive an effort at all. Being seen as acknowledging and fixing your mistake can raise you higher than not having made the mistake at all. People don't notice when everything goes according to plan.No they won't, because there really isn't any money in it. Unless you want to claim that most people loved the EC and forgave BW for everything because of it. But even then, you're at best back to square one. You haven't improved your rep as a company so much as repaired what Step A did to your rep.
A Golden Dragon wrote...
It became clear to me when I understood that the Underlying theme of all three ME games was Sacrifice.
In ME 1, you sacrifice 1 character (Ashley or Kaidan) and potentially your (character's) career and the Council.
In ME 2, you sacrifice up to everyone but Chakwas and Joker. You are even TOLD this (the Consort's email).
In ME 3, you can potentially sacrifice up to half the galaxy.
I was blindsided.
Benchpress610 wrote...
I lost pretty much all hope when they announced the EC with their bullet points Q&A talking about clarification, closure and artistic vision. This was confirmed after the EC came out and they locked 3DandBeyond’s “One Last Plea” thread.
iakus wrote...
Benchpress610 wrote...
I lost pretty much all hope when they announced the EC with their bullet points Q&A talking about clarification, closure and artistic vision. This was confirmed after the EC came out and they locked 3DandBeyond’s “One Last Plea” thread.
Yeah that was a dark day. There were a lot of cogent reasons why the ending didn't work and should be changed. It even stayed fairly civil.
Alas, what we think truly didn't matter.
Retour en haut
