177 réponses à ce sujet

[Erez Kristal]

dreamgazer wrote...

I'm fine with being in the "meh" camp. Thanks.

Yes, but do you understand why we are displeased or do you simply enjoy sitting in your ivory tower:crying:

[dreamgazer]

o Ventus wrote...

3. You made a statement, and I asked for clarification. If you can't do this, then there wasn't muh purpose in you saying it. Do you just like to see the words you typed?

I did clarify, as stated above, without attempting to "define" that phrase. Would you like a link to the Facebook survey, or should we hunt down posts on the forum that confirm people's needs were met with the EC?

No need for the antagonism, Ventus.

[dreamgazer]

erezike wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I'm fine with being in the "meh" camp. Thanks.

Yes, but do you understand why we are displeased or do you simply enjoy sitting in your ivory tower:crying:

Silly statement. I understand the legitimate grievances just fine, as well as the deliberate exaggerations and bitterness built around them.

I've understood them for sixteen months.

[CronoDragoon]

erezike wrote...

Thats preposterous of you to say crono, im suprised.
You are obviously in the pro me3 camp along with a few others respected individuals. you protect me3 and bioware with a fierty passion and hunt down all those who dare oppose the giant.

That you have no concept of subtlety and think in absolutes (because NO ONE could both LIKE things about the ending and DISLIKE other things!) just makes me want to repeat my desire to remain outside of both the hater camp and the arrogant troll camp.

I argue against unreasonable criticisms of BioWare, but not every criticism of BioWare is unreasonable. For example, their marketing - from which I thankfully spared myself by keeping off forums for spoiler reasons for like a year - was atrocious, misleading, and short-sided.

[ShepnTali]

One side feels betrayed, another side doesn't get the big deal, then there are other sides here and there inbetween. There are lots of fair points to go around. It's an endless arguing of opinions that don't budge. I think that's the nutshell we have here.

[Erez Kristal]

ShepnTali wrote...

One side feels betrayed, another side doesn't get the big deal, then there are other sides here and there inbetween. There are lots of fair points to go around. It's an endless arguing of opinions that don't budge. I think that's the nutshell we have here.

i agree, its a pointless arguement. 

Modifié par erezike, 29 juillet 2013 - 07:52 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Interesting read, Dee.

I don't think one should look at the civilizations as children. They were never in that role. Instead they were victims of a situation they were forced into. Here is why:

If I assume that what the leviathans said was true then all the Intelligence was created for was to secure that their thralls would pay tribute and not be exterminated by synthetics. To paint a picture of that society:

Leviathan: "Before the cycles, our kind was the apex of life in the galaxy. The lesser species were in our thrall, serving our needs."

It's the same kind of rhetoric we hear from the reapers. In their case the thralls payed tribute with their lives. Complete civilizations were destroyed and harvested. Cycle after cycle. There was no need to be humane. Their examples, the leviathans were not either. So they never learned anything close it.

Leviathan: "You cannot conceive of a galaxy that bends to your will. Every creature, every nation, every planet we discovered became our tools. We were above the concerns of lesser species."

The reapers do the very same. Everyone and everything had to bend to their will. The entire cyclical genocide had initially one purpose and would be the reason for the Intelligence's existence:

Leviathan: "Over time, the species built machines that then destroyed them. Tribute does not flow from a dead race. To solve this problem, we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost. As the Intelligence evolved, it studied the development of civilizations. It's understanding grew until it found a solution. In that instant it betrayed us. It chose our kind as the first harvest. From our essence, the first reaper was created. You call it Harbinger."

Apparently the Intelligence decided that it was allowed to change the parameters of its assignment and changed it from securing the leviathans' thrall supplies to securing organic life in general, no matter the cost. In doing so, it showed no respect for the life it intended to protect. It's solution was that of something like a galactic gardener: Organic life and its technology was its crop and harvesting it was required for the reapers' own reproduction.

It doesn't matter if the Intelligence was aware of that lack of respect, but from the point of view of its victims it resulted in a violation of the right of self-determination of any of the species the Intelligence and the reapers fed on.

At the very end of ME3 the Intelligence continued that same line of thought. In its lifetime it never falsified whether the reason for its existence was valid. So, according to the Intelligence, the hypothetical synthetic thread was still true.

Shepard was never able to reason with the Intelligence. He/she was forced to make one of the three choices presented by the Crucible or yet another cycle would perish.

In short, there never was a higher purpose of the three main decisions. Control just leaves the reapers be and leave the genocide machine in place. Synthesis was never an active goal of society and again would violate the right of self-determination. The destroy option is most likely the only option that society cared for and united them. And even that one destroys yet another race. At least it is the only option that can get rid of that violation.

[Erez Kristal]

CronoDragoon wrote...

erezike wrote...

Thats preposterous of you to say crono, im suprised.
You are obviously in the pro me3 camp along with a few others respected individuals. you protect me3 and bioware with a fierty passion and hunt down all those who dare oppose the giant.

That you have no concept of subtlety and think in absolutes (because NO ONE could both LIKE things about the ending and DISLIKE other things!) just makes me want to repeat my desire to remain outside of both the hater camp and the arrogant troll camp.

I argue against unreasonable criticisms of BioWare, but not every criticism of BioWare is unreasonable. For example, their marketing - from which I thankfully spared myself by keeping off forums for spoiler reasons for like a year - was atrocious, misleading, and short-sided.

Subtlety, is boring :-). its a good thing none of us lack it here.  afcourse someone can like and hate things are not a 100% to each direction. for example i enjoyed many parts in me3. i enjoyed the shooting the jokes, some part of the music. but the most important part for me was a faliure. the story lacked consistency and kicked me out of being immersed in the game time after time.  

as for the camps, did you not like the game crono? and do you not critize those who didnt?

[CronoDragoon]

erezike wrote...

as for the camps, did you not like the game crono? and do you not critize those who didnt?

Oh, I loved the game, but just like people who disagree on why X aspect of the game is bad, not everyone agrees on what was good. I argue both with people who like and dislike the game, because I have a mind of my own and don't automatically take a side based on the general tone of someone's post.

[o Ventus]

dreamgazer wrote...

I did clarify, as stated above, without attempting to "define" that phrase.

You didn't even try.

Would you like a link to the Facebook survey, or should we hunt down posts on the forum that confirm people's needs were met with the EC?

Sure, after you compare the numbers of the "satisfied" people to the "unsatisfied" people, and factor in the number of returns and the number of total sales.

No need for the antagonism, Ventus.

I'll stop being antagonistic when you stop dodging the point.

Modifié par o Ventus, 29 juillet 2013 - 08:11 .

[Bleachrude]

I disagree with the idea that ME3 ending is depressing....

The ending (frankly the whole game) in the Last of Us is depressing since you literally can count on hand with fingers to spare the amount of good people in the world.

That's a depressing world.

[Erez Kristal]

Bleachrude wrote...

I disagree with the idea that ME3 ending is depressing....

The ending (frankly the whole game) in the Last of Us is depressing since you literally can count on hand with fingers to spare the amount of good people in the world.

That's a depressing world.

Depressing is really a matter of opinion.
while i have no problem playing a game in a doomed world and being jolly while doing it( duke of nukem)
I do have a problem feeling helpless when playing, which is how i felt throught mass effect 3. I never felt more helpless in a game.

[dreamgazer]

o Ventus wrote...

You didn't even try.

However, if surveys indicate that the EC met or exceeded people's expectations, which they have, I'd say that's a great deal.

Yeah, I did. 

Sure, after you compare the numbers of the "satisfied" people to the "unsatisfied" people, and factor in the number of returns and the number of total sales.

Which nobody can do.  You also can't measure how many people returned ME1 and ME2 for comparison. The only data available is that on surveys and message boards, such as the one taken on Facebook. 

I'll stop being antagonistic when you stop dodging the point.

I didn't "dodge the point". It's impossible to concretely define "great deal", besides looking at observable ratios in smaller-scale polls---much in the same way that it's impossible to identify majorities. My crude definition is included above, though. 

[o Ventus]

dreamgazer wrote...

I didn't "dodge the point". It's impossible to concretely define "great deal", besides looking at observable ratios in smaller-scale polls---much in the same way that it's impossible to identify majorities. My crude definition is included above, though. 

Then don't make stupid statements that you can't prove.

[dreamgazer]

o Ventus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I didn't "dodge the point". It's impossible to concretely define "great deal", besides looking at observable ratios in smaller-scale polls---much in the same way that it's impossible to identify majorities. My crude definition is included above, though. 

Then don't make stupid statements that you can't prove.

My proof is included above, as well as the observable amount of posts I've seen that state, in one for or another: "The EC was enough".  What else can I do, besides pointing to suggestions that more people were satisfied than not?

[AlanC9]

o Ventus wrote...


1. About a third of the people who bought the game ever beat it.

What's your source for that number? I don't see it on the infographic, and I wasn't aware of Bio releasing any other information.

[wright1978]

Captain Wesker wrote...

The main problem with the endings, in my opinion, is that it effectively took all the diversity (This includes your Shepard's decisions, romance(s) or lack thereof, appearance, back story, alignment, ME2 Loyalty, etc) and shoved them into a possible 3 endings... The endings just lacked really any variability, and this in turn gives me little to show for my perfect triliogy (All quests completed, max level every game, collected everything, bought everything, etc.). Its not like in DA:O where I could load up the save just before exiting the throne room, and my friends/fam can see my choices, their outcomes and epilogues.

I know they made the extended cut which adds some extra-content for the fans, which I enjoyed, however it didn't change the main three ending choices.

Yep really feels like someone tagged on a cheap starbrat shaped three path nozzle at the end of the story without any thought of having different endings growing organically out of the sotry.

[CronoDragoon]

o Ventus wrote...

Then don't make stupid statements that you can't prove.

Now to prove his statement is stupid.

[CptData]

iakus wrote...

I don't know about depression, but the ending was certainly not written by someone who cared about the series (yes, I am aware of the rumors of who wrote the ending. But I am not going to assume those rumors are true) More like it was written not as a war story, but as an amageddon, to destroy Shepard, the galaxy, and any hope of continuation.

It feels like was written by someone tired of the series, and just wanted to end it. And didn't care how it happened or who got p*ssed off about it. Guess the joke's on them, though. Too bad the joke's still on us too.

Yeah, somewhere within those lines you'll find the truth.

I'm just wondering who was tired with the series. Bioware and its team of writers? Just the lead writer Mac Walters? Or did they all want to end the series by their vision and ran out of time since EA was tired of the first trilogy? Who knows. In the end, it doesn't really matter since BW claimed the old endings were their artistic vision (I can't believe that). The EC was an attempt to improve the bad endings in a way we got more info about some of the outcomes. Still, the endings are bad in a narrative way thanks to the introduction of the Starchild and three choices with more or less logical results.

Let's say BW had gotten more time to finish ME3 (at least one more year of development), does anyone think the endings wouldn't be the same as we've seen in the EC?
I dunno.
However, there are several issues within the game that gives me the idea ME3 wasn't finished. One of the most prominent issues is also quite obvious: the feeling of a "rushed story" in the last third of the game. The first two thirds, ignoring any DLC, pretty much consisted of those events:

- Fleeing from Earth
- Mars Mission
- First visit at the Citadel
- Gather Help from the Turians
-- "Sub" Plot: Cure the Genophage
- Second visit at the Citadel (The Coup)
- Solving the Morning War

That's pretty much what I would consider as roughly 2/3 of the entire game. The Coup is placed more or less in the middle of a non-DLC vanilla ME3.
Until that point, the story telling comes with a certain flow of events. It doesn't feel rushed at any point and still all those events are incredible intense. Those parts pretty much define the ME experience in the series, like the Suicide Mission does in ME2, for instance.

However, things change in the last third of ME3. Thessia feels as if the plot of 3 or 4 missions got cramped into one mission. Kai Leng simply is there, appearing out of nowhere, taking your price and leaves you devastated. Where's the build up for such story telling climax? Correct - it's missing. The player feels cheated because it suddenly happens without warning. Although it might have been the intention of the writers here, it still doesn't feel like proper story telling.

I also can say the same about Sanctuary. Again, a plot spanning multiple missions is reduced to exactly one. I'd have loved seeing this part of the game as a new "Feros Mission": you start in a pretty "normal" environment, but right from the beginning you feel there's something wrong. Know what I mean? Instead of an empty facility, the place should have been crowded by refugees. Everyone hopes for a new (and safe) life beyond those gates, but they all feel kinda uneasy giving away any communication devices and also some have an odd behavior.
It would have been much more intense, especially once you've revealed the truth of said facility: knowing thousands are waiting outside for shelter, husks are produced from those who already "got inside".

The final job on the Cerberus HQ feels okay for me so far, but the showdown with Kai Leng feels forced and totally unneccessary. Reason for that feeling is the lack of proper introduction of Kai Leng. Without the book all you know about him is that he's an antagonist jeopardizing Shepard's job. Besides that? Well, he kills Thane/Kirrahe and, if you weren't careful, Miranda as well. That alone doesn't make Kai Leng a real character. And since he's no real character / lacks proper development to become one, I can't feel that strong emotion called "hate". He's just an obstacle to finish the job, no real threat.

I don't have to go into the "Priority:Earth" mission, do I? It does its job, but lacks to display all those assets you were collecting at least one full game. Where's Balak and his Batarian soldiers? Where are the Blue Suns, where are the Vorcha charging, where's that Krogan army Wrex promised me to lead? Seriously, where's all the stuff I was collecting so hard?
It's also not displayed in the space battle, with exception of the Geth/Quarians and the Destiny Ascension.

Also I don't have to go into the field of lacking / incomplete character development for a lot of characters, including missing key dialogues (like Ashley's talk about Shepard's experience in the afterlife - not the bar, but the "real" one) ...

And that is long before the actual endings. They're just the most annoying part since this incredible and outstanding series ends with a so called "adult ending", regardless of what you pick. Thing is: even "adult endings" can be satisfying, even if sad, dark and gritty. ME3 endings, however, aren't satisfying, they don't even feel like "adult endings" at all. They're just disappointing, which simply is not a fair way to end this series.

That's why a lot of people were p***ed off in March 2012. That's why a lot of people were still p***ed off after releasing the EC. And there are still a lot of people p***ed of even after all those DLCs including Citadel DLC with that "farewell party", because nothing changed the mostly bad last third part of ME3. The series still doesn't have a satisfying ending.

From a story telling PoV I only can say this:

I could have lived with a dark, gritty ending. I could have lived with an ending where Shepard dies with no way to avoid his/her death. I could have lived with an ending leaving most parts of the galaxy damaged beyond repair. If all of that stuff would have made sense story telling wise.
Well, the endings don't make sense.

So maybe it's true and BW ran out of time before coming up with a "real ending". Or, more precisely, a "working last third part of the story in ME3"

Modifié par CptData, 29 juillet 2013 - 10:51 .

[Bakgrind]

AlanC9 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...


1. About a third of the people who bought the game ever beat it.

What's your source for that number? I don't see it on the infographic, and I wasn't aware of Bio releasing any other information.

This article should help. Bioware is quoted as saying 42% of the people that purchased the game completed it ( they also released information like this on this forum but I can't find the link atm... www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/08/13/42-of-mass-effect-3-players-finished-the-game.aspx

[wright1978]

Bakgrind wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...


1. About a third of the people who bought the game ever beat it.

What's your source for that number? I don't see it on the infographic, and I wasn't aware of Bio releasing any other information.

This article should help. Bioware is quoted as saying 42% of the people that purchased the game completed it ( they also released information like this on this forum but I can't find the link atm... www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/08/13/42-of-mass-effect-3-players-finished-the-game.aspx

Hardly surpised. Taking lessons from a successful/rewarding ending obviously wasn't part of the plan.

[Tron Mega]

what id like to know:

at what point in the campaign did most people quit their second attempt at a playthrough?

id guess some time durring mars, perhaps.

seems weird less then half of ME3 playes even finished the game. how much more casual can biowares brain trust go forward with "hey bors, only half the players even finished the game, so that means we dont even need an ending! taking that a step further, the people who didnt play our game didnt even need a begining so LETS REMOVE THE BEGINNING TOO! wow, guys, everyone see how big my ego is? i hope so!"

Modifié par Tron Mega, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:17 .

[chemiclord]

Tron Mega wrote...

seems weird less then half of ME3 playes even finished the game. how much more casual can biowares brain trust go forward with "hey bors, only half the players even finished the game, so that means we dont even need an anding. and also more planet scanning. look how smart i am!"

Believe it or not, 40% of your customers actually completing the game is a very HIGH percentage (usual completion rate is roughly 25-30% depending on the survey), and ME3's completion rate is also pretty much right on par with the other two (If I remember the data correctly, ME1 is actually the LOWEST completion rate among the three).

Modifié par chemiclord, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:20 .

[KENNY4753]

I dont trust any completion percentage number. too many variables like...

What tests did the do to reach that 42%?
Did the tests include offline players?
Do these tests include mulitiple playthroughs with some uncompletd games?
Do these tests include EC equip/not equip games?
...etc

That 42% could have just been made up for all we know.

[AlanC9]

Bakgrind wrote...


This article should help. Bioware is quoted as saying 42% of the people that purchased the game completed it ( they also released information like this on this forum but I can't find the link atm... www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/08/13/42-of-mass-effect-3-players-finished-the-game.aspx

Thanks. Those stats don't make ME3 look all that bad. Actually, it makes completion percentages look pretty much worthless as a way to evaluate games.