365 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Additionally, because choosing one or the other has no practical difference in stopping Sovereign despite what the game tells you, the only reason to sacrifice the Council is because you don't like them, in which case "the Council dies" is not a consequence but a benefit.

Another instance of Bio framing a choice as having consequences when it does not, right. From a pure RP perspective Shepard can still think the choice has consequences - though from that perspective I don't  see how the Council ever gets saved.

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Sure, the occasional thread. There was also the occasional thread from people wanting a final boss. I doubt the endings would have been received much better with a happy ending vs. TIM turning into a giant robot which some posters requested.

I am convinced having at cleast a couple of clear-cut happy endings would have done far, far more good than a boss battle with TIM-Reaper

Nah, I'd say you're off the mark on that point. The pro-ending crowd was an extreme minority in the immediate aftermath. In other words: they could not out-shout the anti-ending crowd. It was caused by all the Retake threads coming from posters who hated the endings but wanted to make clear it wasn't because they were sad. This was something which alot of posters fought against when Ign articles among others started appearing to say everyone was upset that Shepard didn't live. There were threads which complained about space magic (Synthesis), the Rachni import, the 16 endings bit, the A-B-C endings, lack of closure with companions, the disappearance of Shepard's squad, Shepard's lack of argument against the Catalyst, and especially the Catalyst's logic. And in all that there were also some happy ending arguments.

Pro-ending fans, IGN, professional game reviewers.  There was a lot of "2deep4U" claims coming from various directions.  Not to mention that the depressing aspect of the ending was only one part of the badness.  As you said, there were a lot of things wrong with th ending.  

My point is: you're giving happy ending fans too much credit in saying we wouldn't have had the retake movement if Shepard lived, assuming all the other nonsensical crap was in there. 3/4 of complaints? Really?

I'm saying that if there were the option for a happy ending, many of the other complaints would not have stood out so boldly.  Happy endings can cover up a multitude of flaws.  Why do you think romantic comedies are so poular?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

Pro-ending fans, IGN, professional game reviewers.  There was a lot of "2deep4U" claims coming from various directions.  Not to mention that the depressing aspect of the ending was only one part of the badness.  As you said, there were a lot of things wrong with th ending.  

And anti-ending fans. As I said, here on the forums pro-ending fans were a small minority, not enough to leave such an impression.

The fact that anti-enders had to go out of the way to separate their wants/desires from those of the happy ending crowd speaks volumes, as does many of the anti-ending articles which began to pop up says quite a bit. In fact, I don't think Retake would have had any success period if narrowed to the fans asking for Bioware to keep Shepard alive.

I'm saying that if there were the option for a happy ending, many of the other complaints would not have stood out so boldly.  Happy endings can cover up a multitude of flaws.  Why do you think romantic comedies are so poular?

I'd chalk this up to more wishful thinking.

Romantic comedies don't necessarily require that you shut your brain off, it's simply something which many of the bad ones fall into. Mass Effect 3 requiring the viewer to shut their brain off completely for the last five minutes of the experience is quite a leap of faith, compared to the rest of the trilogy. Not to mention, I could go through a myriad of movies out there with happy endings which are still considered absolutely terrible: X-Men 3? Matrix Revolutions? Spiderman 3?  Pirates of the Caribbean 3? And those are just trilogy endings.

Basically, I don't think the fans are quite as dumb as you're giving them credit for. They're not children who can be mesmerized by shiny colors to the point where they shut their brains off completely, especially if they go into the experience with their brains on.

Considering there were quite a few fans differentiating themselves from the happy ending crowd, it's highly unlikely they would be pleased just because Shepard survives, when the narrative fails on so many other levels.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 10 juillet 2013 - 05:05 .

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

The fact that anti-enders had to go out of the way to separate their wants/desires from those of the happy ending crowd speaks volumes, as does many of the anti-ending articles which began to pop up says quite a bit. In fact, I don't think Retake would have had any success period if narrowed to the fans asking for Bioware to keep Shepard alive.

Of course not.  THere's so very very much wrong with the endings.  But the oppressive darkness in all of them did much to fuel the hatred, I'm sure.

I'd chalk this up to more wishful thinking. 

Romantic comedies don't necessarily require that you shut your brain off, it's simply something which many of the bad ones fall into. Mass Effect 3 requiring the viewer to shut their brain off completely for the last five minutes of the experience is quite a leap of faith, compared to the rest of the trilogy. Not to mention, I could go through a myriad of movies out there with happy endings which are still considered absolutely terrible: X-Men 3? Matrix Revolutions? Spiderman 3?  Pirates of the Caribbean 3? And those are just trilogy endings.

Basically, I don't think the fans are quite as dumb as you're giving them credit for. They're not children who can be mesmerized by shiny colors to the point where they shut their brains off completely, especially if they go into the experience with their brains on.

Considering there were quite a few fans differentiating themselves from the happy ending crowd, it's highly unlikely they would be pleased just because Shepard survives, when the narrative fails on so many other levels.

I'm not saying fans are dumb at all.  Or If I am then I'm dumb right along with them.  Notice the banner in my sig?  I'm saying that people are naturally less critical of stuff that makes them happy, and more critical of that which makes them unhappy.  Happy ending=/=high quality.  Just that people will be more forgiving of the flaws.  It's quite possible for stuff to be so bad no ending can overcome it of course. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

I'm not saying fans are dumb at all.  Or If I am then I'm dumb right along with them.  Notice the banner in my sig?  I'm saying that people are naturally less critical of stuff that makes them happy, and more critical of that which makes them unhappy.  

Not explicitly, but I think it's an implication from the idea that a happy ending would mean they can ignore all the mind-numbingly other bad elements to the ending.

Remember it was you who said 3/4 of the complaints would be gone, in addition to ME3's ending falling to normal levels of fan rage. I'm suggesting that is a huge leap in judgment, given the sheer diversity of complaints and that quite a few anti-enders did not want the public/people in general to think this was exclusively about happy endings. That some were worried about this I think says alot regarding the perception the Retake movement would have had if it was mostly a "Save Shepard" movement.

Happy endings were lower on the awareness campaign than issues of Bioware promising certain things or a general lack of logic to the endings.

Happy ending=/=high quality.  Just that people will be more forgiving of the flaws.  It's quite possible for stuff to be so bad no ending can overcome it of course. 

This is where my incredulity comes in. With all the complaints against it, even with a happy ending, it's highly doubtful ME3's ending would have been well-received at all, given what leads up to it. Plenty of hype regarding the final part of a trilogy, the first ever to feature narrative save imports, but all people wanted was the protagonist to survive? Highly doubtful.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 10 juillet 2013 - 05:31 .

[Laforgus]

But a good ending exist!

Destroy The Reapers

[Redbelle]

Laforgus wrote...

But a good ending exist!

Destroy The Reapers

I don't deem, destroying EDI as good.

Nor the Geth. I managed to get them and Quarians to bond the first playthrough. That's decisions from ME1 to 3 ticking all the right boxes.

And then to destroy the Reapers I had to destroy them too.

Nope. Not good at all.

But the best of a bunch of lousy options. I just don't like what I was left with.

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Not explicitly, but I think it's an implication from the idea that a happy ending would mean they can ignore all the mind-numbingly other bad elements to the ending.

Not ignore.  And not all.  But it might not have seemed so mind-numbingly bad.  The first two ME games have their share of flaws, which people overlook.  Or at least rage must less against.  

Remember it was you who said 3/4 of the complaints would be gone, in addition to ME3's ending falling to normal levels of fan rage. I'm suggesting that is a huge leap in judgment, given the sheer diversity of complaints and that quite a few anti-enders did not want the public/people in general to think this was exclusively about happy endings. That some were worried about this I think says alot regarding the perception the Retake movement would have had if it was mostly a "Save Shepard" movement.

Happy endings were lower on the awareness campaign than issues of Bioware promising certain things or a general lack of logic to the endings.

At this point, with so much time to fester, the damage may well have been done.  But at the start?  or at least with EC, I think more pople than you realise would have been willing to let go.  Maybe with some grumbling of course.  

Happy ending=/=high quality.  Just that people will be more forgiving of the flaws.  It's quite possible for stuff to be so bad no ending can overcome it of course. 

This is where my incredulity comes in. With all the complaints against it, even with a happy ending, it's highly doubtful ME3's ending would have been well-received at all, given what leads up to it. Plenty of hype regarding the final part of a trilogy, the first ever to feature narrative save imports, but all people wanted was the protagonist to survive? Highly doubtful.

I don't know about well received, but I think "tolerated" would not be an innaccurate descriptor.  And I'm certain the Retake movement would not have had the numbers they did.  No EC would have been made, and a Citadel dlc would not have been made nor even required to placate people.

[Laforgus]

Redbelle wrote...

Laforgus wrote...

But a good ending exist!

Destroy The Reapers

I don't deem, destroying EDI as good.

Nor the Geth. I managed to get them and Quarians to bond the first playthrough. That's decisions from ME1 to 3 ticking all the right boxes.

And then to destroy the Reapers I had to destroy them too.

Nope. Not good at all.

But the best of a bunch of lousy options. I just don't like what I was left with.

We are talking about good ending, not Fairy Tales. You cant save everyone my friend! 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Laforgus wrote...

But a good ending exist!

Destroy The Reapers

Yet this is the only ending that does not give closure in its High form to the player. The other two give closure. I'm not counting the troll ending.

[CronoDragoon]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

This is where my incredulity comes in. With all the complaints against it, even with a happy ending, it's highly doubtful ME3's ending would have been well-received at all, given what leads up to it. Plenty of hype regarding the final part of a trilogy, the first ever to feature narrative save imports, but all people wanted was the protagonist to survive? Highly doubtful.

Well-received, no. But had there been a happy ending (for Destroy, meaning no EDI/geth destruction, no relay destruction, Shepard surviving) then there would have been no Retake movement. Ridiculous plot twists exist in many games, but the difference between shrugging and shaking your head and posting about it on message boards for years comes down to your emotional reaction, not your logical one.

In some ways ME2's ending is just as ridiculous, with the Human Reaper and all that stupid stuff about essences of species and liquified goo somehow turning a machine into an organic hybrid. But the emotional reaction to the Suicide Mission was incredible, so you got normal levels of message board belly-aching.

Other examples include virtually every JRPG ever made, in which the logic and MO of the villain almost always ends up being boring nonsense. But those JRPGs don't take any risks and always have a happy ending, so it mostly leads to a laughing "wtf?" instead of a heartbroken one. I mean really, just look at FF9's ending.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 10 juillet 2013 - 06:00 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

Not ignore.  And not all.  But it might not have seemed so mind-numbingly bad.  The first two ME games have their share of flaws, which people overlook.  Or at least rage must less against.  

Sure, but why does this imply that the reason those flaws are overlooked is because of happy endings?

You're positing as a general rule that people will ignore flaws merely because something ends happily. There are plenty of reviled romantic comedies out there which fail to be funny or witty, but still manage a happy ending. Is this assessment based on anything factual, or merely your own dislike of the endings?

At this point, with so much time to fester, the damage may well have been done.  But at the start?  or at least with EC, I think more pople than you realise would have been willing to let go.  Maybe with some grumbling of course.  

I still say doubtful, just based on the negative connotation that fighting for a happy ending had, even in the days of Retake. Retake certainly didn't get all (or even most) of its demands met. But just based on how much they had to fight to convince others that this wasn't about happy endings, it's surprising that we got anything at all.

The happy ending crowd certainly was a boost to the numbers, but I think you're giving them far too much credit, as being the foundation particularly when you have no actual method of assessing how all the ME3 fans felt about a happy ending in comparison to all the other elements complained about. I believe this was something Bioware went out of their way to highlight, since alot of fans mistakenly believed that there was a united front, when what people actually hated about the endings was so divided.

I don't know about well received, but I think "tolerated" would not be an innaccurate descriptor.  And I'm certain the Retake movement would not have had the numbers they did.  No EC would have been made, and a Citadel dlc would not have been made nor even required to placate people.

Sure, about as tolerated as Spiderman 3's ending, Matrix Revolution's ending, or X-Men 3's ending. And most people tend to look at those as the bottom of the barrel of their respective trilogies.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 10 juillet 2013 - 06:02 .

[Redbelle]

Laforgus wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Laforgus wrote...

But a good ending exist!

Destroy The Reapers

I don't deem, destroying EDI as good.

Nor the Geth. I managed to get them and Quarians to bond the first playthrough. That's decisions from ME1 to 3 ticking all the right boxes.

And then to destroy the Reapers I had to destroy them too.

Nope. Not good at all.

But the best of a bunch of lousy options. I just don't like what I was left with.

We are talking about good ending, not Fairy Tales. You cant save everyone my friend! 

I'll see your fairy tale and raise you a video game.

(And I find it hard to establish your connection to good endings and fairy tales when fairy tales can be happy disney affiars or Brothers grim stories).

Lets start with your finale sentence. You cannot save everyone. This is true. You cannot save Thane.

Everybody else can be saved from death. Even Mordin (If you kill Wrex). Rather than be a fairy tale, the game poses a challenge. Get the outcome you desire.

You can work to save all of your former ME2 crew. The Virmire survivor. The whole lot of the Normandy crew with the exception of those who died in the SR1 crash. You can even save Kelly Chambers.

Yet, you seem to think that gamers should not strive to reach these targets, shrug shoulders with a C'est le vie?

Ok, not fair. These are reachable goals. We knew after a month or so after the games release that we could save everyone with two exceptions. Thane and Mordin/Wrex.

So why at the end did the goal post change......... actually that's not right. The goal posts came out and were replaced with a tennis net. We were made to play an entirely different type of game with different rules and different possible outcomes.

I'm not saying that the game as it stands is entirely without merit

I'm saying that in the future of developments from Bioware, they should stick to their guns and play a straight game where the outcome lies in parallel with the game being played.

If you can save the people you have fought for, then they should carry that through to it's logical conclusion and develop an ending, along with the other endings, where you can save everyone.

It's not about being a fairy tale ending. It's about, as a gamer, playing a video game, having a goal to reach for.

As for the destroy ending........... I still have that down as my head canon ending because it achieve's my goal of destroying the Reapers. But in destroying my allies it's not an ideal ending. So as a gamer I see no reason why I shouldn't dip back in for another go at acheiving a better result..........

But I can't. Because the desirable outcome I wish to work for isn't available for me to game my way towards.

And that's why destroy is the best of a bad bunch for me.

Modifié par Redbelle, 10 juillet 2013 - 07:29 .

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Sure, but why does this imply that the reason those flaws are overlooked is because of happy endings?

You're positing as a general rule that people will ignore flaws merely because something ends happily. There are plenty of reviled romantic comedies out there which fail to be funny or witty, but still manage a happy ending. Is this assessment based on anything factual, or merely your own dislike of the endings?

I never said a happy ending was a cure all.  Only that people would likely not have looked at the game with as critical an eye.  It might still be considered a mediocre or bad game.  But there are lots of those, which don't spawn movements like Retake.  Odds are ME3 would have been just another own of those.

I still say doubtful, just based on the negative connotation that fighting for a happy ending had, even in the days of Retake. Retake certainly didn't get all (or even most) of its demands met. But just based on how much they had to fight to convince others that this wasn't about happy endings, it's surprising that we got anything at all.

 And I still hold that it was largely to avoid the "crybaby" label.  That and what was desired was alternatives, not forced happy endings.

Grimdark fans can keep their dark endings, just give a variety like we were promised.

The happy ending crowd certainly was a boost to the numbers, but I think you're giving them far too much credit, as being the foundation particularly when you have no actual method of assessing how all the ME3 fans felt about a happy ending in comparison to all the other elements complained about. I believe this was something Bioware went out of their way to highlight, since alot of fans mistakenly believed that there was a united front, when what people actually hated about the endings was so divided.

Hey if Bioware can claim secret numbers, I can "speculate" on my own 

Plus there was at least one major poll done fairly early on.  On a German site, I believe.  There was a lot of buzz about it.  Even Bioware took an interest and spread the news about it.  It showed pretty solidly that player did want the option for a happy ending.

Of course, when the results were released, it also showed the endings we got were pretty universally reviled.  That was when Bioware suddenly said their data was wrong, irrelevant and "dismissed that claim"...

Sure, about as tolerated as Spiderman 3's ending, Matrix Revolution's ending, or X-Men 3's ending. And most people tend to look at those as the bottom of the barrel of their respective trilogies.

Now think how badly it would have been if Spider-Man died doing something horricially stupid, Or Wolverine, or Neo (oh, wait)

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

csm4267 wrote...

Mass Effect 3 did have a good ending. Unfortunately too many people here just can't see it, because their emotions have been in a knot for the last year. One guy went into great detail explaining why the ending was actually good.

I suppose people wanted an ending where they choose to destroy the Reapers, but nothing bad happens. No one gets stranded in the Sol system (relays explode). Everyone goes home. Shepard doesn't have to sacrifice the Geth or synthetics to defeat the Reapers. Even though it was said that the theme of the game was victory through sacrifice.

Or, another thing was they spent 200 hours and 5 years playing these games so it had to have a good ending. It couldn't end with a punch to the gut ending.

Hate to say it, when you read a book, watch a movie, or play a video game for 5 years, you go into it knowing there is a chance you may be disappointed with how it turns out.

Just because someone spent that amount of time playing the game that they feel like they are owed a good ending.

I don't care what one guy said, or what one critic said, or what anyone else said.

I disagree with you. When the Executive Producer of the game says it is "your story" over and over and over and over for five years, even though we know that was a crock of marketing BS, they'd better deliver it as such. You can look up the videos on Youtube if you wish. They are public record. Shepard's legacy was to be ours. It was not.

If they're going to write it as an "artistic" work from the get go, they shouldn't say it is your story at all and just let the chips fall where they may, period. At this point they can stand on their "artistic integrity," and let the whining begin. I'll stand with the writers in this case. They didn't do this.

When they do the other one, they really cannot. Why? They pulled what we call a bait and switch in the business world.

[KaiserShep]

csm4267 wrote...

Mass Effect 3 did have a good ending. Unfortunately too many people here just can't see it, because their emotions have been in a knot for the last year. One guy went into great detail explaining why the ending was actually good.

Interesting take on the ending. I disagree that a good (happy) ending is bad in itself. It being "cliche" does not necessarily make an ending bad. It's all really a matter of execution. I don't have a problem with a bittersweet ending, so long as it's done properly. That said, the OE is what I would consider out and out bad in every sense, but the EC did change that for me. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 10 juillet 2013 - 08:00 .

[KaiserShep]

I recommend Lionel Hutz. He put up a good fight against the publishers of The NeverEnding Story.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

csm4267 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
I don't care what one guy said, or what one critic said, or what anyone else said.

I disagree with you. When the Executive Producer of the game says it is "your story" over and over and over and over for five years, even though we know that was a crock of marketing BS, they'd better deliver it as such. You can look up the videos on Youtube if you wish. They are public record. Shepard's legacy was to be ours. It was not.

If they're going to write it as an "artistic" work from the get go, they shouldn't say it is your story at all and just let the chips fall where they may, period. At this point they can stand on their "artistic integrity," and let the whining begin. I'll stand with the writers in this case. They didn't do this.

When they do the other one, they really cannot. Why? They pulled what we call a bait and switch in the business world.

Read this or this (top of third page)

Mass Effect was never your story. You guys should read this stuff before you purchased this game, so you could save yourself from making mistakes.

I think you went into this game with completely unrealistic expectations.


Bottom line, Mass Effect is like a self-contained jar of choices. You can pick and choose how you progress through the game, but Bioware ultimately holds the rope and guides the story.

If people disagree with this, they are free to take them to court, but you'd better have a good lawyer (determining whether it was "your" story). Otherwise their lawyers are going to make you look silly.

Obviously you didn't read my post, and you're just trolling. EULAs are legal boilerplate language. They are used on every single piece of software you purchase. They basically get the manufacturer off the hook in case the software does catastrophic damage to your computer, causes you immense psychological damage or whatever. Give me a break. I used to use boilerplate language on contracts. It was about 10 pages worth of legalese that said "you bought it, you own it, if it doesn't work, tough ****."

And I don't care what Stanley Woo said. Stanley Woo was a community moderator. Stanley Woo was not Executive Producer of Mass Effect. Casey Hudson was Executive Producer. No one is suing anyone. Pull your head out of your posterior. Read my post.  

You are obviously not in business because you won't stay in business very long with your attitude.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 10 juillet 2013 - 08:13 .

[Redbelle]

KaiserShep wrote...

csm4267 wrote...

Mass Effect 3 did have a good ending. Unfortunately too many people here just can't see it, because their emotions have been in a knot for the last year. One guy went into great detail explaining why the ending was actually good.

Interesting take on the ending. I disagree that a good (happy) ending is bad in itself. It being "cliche" does not necessarily make an ending bad. It's all really a matter of execution. I don't have a problem with a bittersweet ending, so long as it's done properly. That said, the OE is what I would consider out and out bad in every sense, but the EC did change that for me. 

Why, oh why, oh why............. does every person who says they like the ending, keep on saying that 'a', as in 'one' happy ending wuld spoil the ending?

I'm not advocating scrapping every ending there is. just that the possible ending's be expanded so that a 100% happy ending is possible.

That's not to say that it will become 'the' ending of the game. R/G or B will still exist. But I see it this way.

RGB are the middle of the spectrum endings. Every benefit has a consequence. These are the endings you get if you play through without attaining certain game flag's.

Refuse. The bad ending. Similar to ME2's everyone dies ending. You ultimately fail. The negative end of the endings spectrum.

The win win ending. You kill the Reapers, save every race from extinction...... and while it's a win on the war level. You still have to pick up the piece's of the war and mourn the dead. But, critically,  the Reaper influence has been anniliated and will never shadow another cycle again. The positive end of the spectrum

Adding a positive ending to the game that has to be earned is what gamers play for. To unlock what they desire as the most favourable outcome.

It's a game. The value of it in the playing. And replaying. To hear players say that it upset their gaming experience is the most undesirable outcome a game developer can hope to acheive. And the upset came from the game ending's being a limited bag from which to choose from.

The refuse ending came about because players told BW they did not agree with the endings, or more importantly, the logic of why Shepard had to choose one of the 3 option's that would have the effect of causing one of the endings.

They wanted more ending's that would allow them to reach for a better resolution to their gaming experience.

And it didn't materialise.

[Redbelle]

csm4267 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
I don't care what one guy said, or what one critic said, or what anyone else said.

I disagree with you. When the Executive Producer of the game says it is "your story" over and over and over and over for five years, even though we know that was a crock of marketing BS, they'd better deliver it as such. You can look up the videos on Youtube if you wish. They are public record. Shepard's legacy was to be ours. It was not.

If they're going to write it as an "artistic" work from the get go, they shouldn't say it is your story at all and just let the chips fall where they may, period. At this point they can stand on their "artistic integrity," and let the whining begin. I'll stand with the writers in this case. They didn't do this.

When they do the other one, they really cannot. Why? They pulled what we call a bait and switch in the business world.

Read this or this (top of third page)

Mass Effect was never your story. You guys should read this stuff before you purchased this game, so you could save yourself from making mistakes.

I think you went into this game with completely unrealistic expectations.


Bottom line, Mass Effect is like a self-contained jar of choices. You can pick and choose how you progress through the game, but Bioware ultimately holds the rope and guides the story.

If people disagree with this, they are free to take them to court, but you'd better have a good lawyer (determining whether it was "your" story). Otherwise their lawyers are going to make you look silly.

The story of ME is written by the player. It is a canvas whereby you are given combination's of paint to use. The paint and brush strokes may be premade, but my Shepard is different than your Shepard. And while it my Shepard is built out of the block BW provided, BW had no control over the block I used to build my character, or choose my path.

Of course ME was my story. It was every gamers story. Read the back of the blurb on the game and it tells you 'you' must save the galaxy. It's a story, that is given to the player. And the player must then take ownership of that IP and enjoy it to it's greatest potential. You don't ring up BW and ask permission to play their game. You play it when it is convienient for you. It's played on your time to your level of ability. to your satisfaction. It's a game that has been released into the public domain.

It's yours! And if BW owned to the degree you insinuate, they could take it back.

They can't though. And they won't. because they can't. Which means they won't.

As for my expectation's. I don't think they were to high. All I expected was a shooter with RPG element's and good character's I could roll up to and talk to whenever the fancy took me.

I expected to be a force for good in the galaxy and I expected to be fighting the Reaper's to throw them back from wheren'ce they came.

I expected that with two games behind them, the overwhelming Reaper invasion would have it's nose blunted but still be a struggle against the odds.

I expected ME3 to play out in a manner like every other against all odds video game. Because when it comes right down to it. The theme of fighting the good fight against insurmountable odds is a stalwart of gaming nirvana. The character's and settings change. The stakes are different and the issues at the heart of the narrative change, but ultimately video games come down to a simple distinction.

It's Man vs Game. And man alway's wins. It's like a gambling den where you never bet against the house.

So to be given a game where you don't reeeeeeally win, is like the house manager going through his taking's and finding he's broken even.

It's not the point of why we're here.

We play games and we play to win. So for a developer to put in an ending where we don't win.........

If that's what they want to do then they should make cinema movies. Because if they wish to reject decades of gaming pschology under some idea that with one game they can change the fundamental nature of their audience, then they have broken an unspoken covenent with gamer's.

We play for fun, we play to win. We really like doing both at the same time AND have our mind blown in the process.

But you need to get the first two right first. If you ditch them and focus solely on the third, your not making a video game.

Modifié par Redbelle, 10 juillet 2013 - 09:43 .

[chemiclord]

Redbelle wrote...

It's yours! And if BW owned to the degree you insinuate, they could take it back.

They can't though. And they won't. because they can't. Which means they won't.

Except they could.

And they did.

Isn't that the very reason you're so pissed off?

[Redbelle]

chemiclord wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

It's yours! And if BW owned to the degree you insinuate, they could take it back.

They can't though. And they won't. because they can't. Which means they won't.

Except they could.

And they did.

Isn't that the very reason you're so pissed off?

I still have my copy of ME3 dude. It's mine...........................

Preeeeeeciioooooooussssssss!!!

And I'm not pissed off. So whatever model of critic you think I am, forget it and attend.

I disspointed. But not angry.

I examine what went wrong and why it went wrong.

I examine what went right and why it went right.

I want to understand how something so good could end so poorly so that the same mistake is not made a second time. And yes, it was a mistake. It created a backlash. The fans responded negatively to the content. Not because that's what fans do. Because there was something they felt they had to respond to.

The question is........... why.

Because if BW don't figure out the answer to this question, then in future releases they could have the same again.

And knowing how to avoid that is just.......... important.

It's easier to explain outside the wording of right and wrong. It's about psychology. The mind of a gamer is adapted to certain modals of resolving game play. It actively seeks reward through projecting onto the protag. So to find the thing that is labeled as the enemy, suddenly becoming the comrade and guiding star of your actions is to travel in one direction, and then stop abruptly and move in the opposite direction.

Completely possible to pull off. Provided you stop gradually and allow the person inside to move at the pace of the vehicle and gradually come to accept the change in destination

Slam on the breaks and slam it in reverse and your thrown in the direction you thought was your destination, only to suddenly see it receding, helpless to adjust your course back to that point.

If the destination is the reward. And the reward has been dangled in front of you for a long time, then the person tends to become fixated on that reward to the exclusion of other potential rewards. Then to change the reward at the last minute to something else is to take that persons expectation and shatter them. The different reward may be just as good or better. But the mind needs time to adjust to the loss of the old reward, and start calculating the benefits of the new one.

Modifié par Redbelle, 10 juillet 2013 - 10:08 .

[chemiclord]

Well... you can ask all the "whys" you want... but it doesn't matter in the slightest if Bioware doesn't think anything actually went wrong or is broken.

That the EC actually didn't change the theme or the presentation of the ending tells me they don't think they have to avoid anything in the future because they don't think they're in the wrong.  The sparse replies from Hudson and Walters also suggest they don't think their product was nearly as bad as the most vocal critics claim.  They think people like you are an impossible to please minority.  They've stopped listening.

You are screaming at a wall to move. At some point, your only option is to walk away and not look back.

Modifié par chemiclord, 10 juillet 2013 - 10:21 .