234 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

StreetMagic wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

EA didn't acquire Bioware (or rather, it's parent company at the time, VG Holding Corp. I think it was reported in the $620 million range), just so could turn them into a vehicle to target casual players. They can target casuals in dozens of ways. There was a whole RPG fanbase they wanted to tap into there.

edit: Actually, I'm seeing a $775 million number tossed around as well, but whatever.

Given the quality of BioWare's recent "RPG"s (using the term loosely for ME3) I find that hard to believe.  Its easier to slap a label on something and call it a day.

At the time too, they acquired Mythic, and I think they had some master plan to break into MMOs (again). So they wanted Bioware to be a part of that strategy (MMORPGs specifcially. Not just RPGs). Of course, we all know how that turned out.

I wonder how much bioWare would go for now...  It's not like the BioWare name is inspiring confidence...

[Sebby]

Steelcan wrote...

csm4267 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Yes, fans have absolutely nothing to do with sales.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

You don't make up much of the sales. Maybe a small slice of the whole pie, but that's it. 

I'm done here, you guys are just wallowing in self-pity because this game didn't turn out how you wanted and you'll pretty much find any reason to hate it. No reason these BSN boards are considered toxic.

>fans don't make up sales
>make a game designed to be a trilogy and carry across (poorly admittedly) each installment. 

Clearly there is no interest in building a fanbase.

He's definitely related to David somehow. They have the same kind of bizarre autistic rationalizations.

[wolfhowwl]

Fans do matter. Dragon Age 2 showed what word of mouth can do.

[KaiserShep]

csm4267 wrote...

Thing is you guys really have nothing constructive to bring to the table.

Then I suppose you suffer from selective reasoning. I've seen plenty of posts from various users laying out the issues they found with the game's narrative structure and endings without resorting to "Lol SuperMac sucks long time" types of criticism. If you think that critics of the ending have nothing constructive to add, then there's no point in you even bothering discussing this issue, because you'll just ignore the constructive input anyway.

Also, your disdain for maintaining a solid fanbase is kind of funny. It's a solid fanbase that breathes life into a franchise. If you can keep the general consensus of the fanbase largely positive, it will do nothing but grow, meaning more sales.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 08 octobre 2013 - 04:33 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

csm4267 your droning is inspirational.

Please keep up the good work.

[shockky]

Steelcan wrote...

csm4267 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Yes, fans have absolutely nothing to do with sales.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

You don't make up much of the sales. Maybe a small slice of the whole pie, but that's it. 

I'm done here, you guys are just wallowing in self-pity because this game didn't turn out how you wanted and you'll pretty much find any reason to hate it. No reason these BSN boards are considered toxic.

>fans don't make up sales
>make a game designed to be a trilogy and carry across (poorly admittedly) each installment. 

Clearly there is no interest in building a fanbase.

meme arrows
this year

[DirtyPhoenix]

imo,

Pre-EC endings: 3/10 Absolute bullcrap

Post-EC endings: 7/10 Not great, but good enough for me. Decent ending for the trilogy. As my friend once put it, atleast after EC the game has an ending. Before it the game just stopped!

[liggy002]

I hated the endings then and I still hate them now. The fundamental issues with the ending were not fixed nor was Priority:Earth enhanced as it should have been. The ending was terrible and the final mission felt hollow and underwhelming.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Yeah, before the EC it was like you were run over by a truck then had a truckload of s*** dumped on you. Now it's like I'm playing Fallout NV because I never did play the DLC for it and I'm realizing how much better a game it is.

[Ferretinabun]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
The Mass Effect series is a mess, and it's a mess right from the beginning. One can start nitpicking the plot apart right from the start of ME1. It is not that well written. It was basically broken out the gate. Who is the most important character in ME1? Is it Liara? No. Is it Wrex? No. Is it Shepard? No. It's Tali'Zorah. Shepard owes her entire career to Tali'Zorah.

Just playing devil's advocate; how do you figure that?

Without Tali's skills there's no recording of Saren, so Shepard's quest fails right at the beginning of ME1.

That doesn't make her the most important character. Okay, her help is crucial to Shep's success at one point, but that's true of several of Shep's crewmembers.

[Mangalores]

Ferretinabun wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
...

Without Tali's skills there's no recording of Saren, so Shepard's quest fails right at the beginning of ME1.

That doesn't make her the most important character. Okay, her help is crucial to Shep's success at one point, but that's true of several of Shep's crewmembers.

With the same reasoning the most important characters of Star Wars a R2D2 and C3PO and Luke is no hero. Without them he would have stayed on his farm pouting and his aunt and uncle would still be alive!

[AlexMBrennan]

With the same reasoning the most important characters of Star Wars a R2D2 and C3PO and Luke is no hero

Those two things are completely unrelated - simply put, a person is the hero because of what they do and not because they are the only person who could have done it. E.g. WP says:

In modern movies, the hero is often simply an ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances, who, despite the odds being stacked against him or her, typically prevails in the end. In some movies (especially action movies), a hero may exhibit characteristics such as superhuman strength and endurance that sometimes makes him nearly invincible. Often a hero in these situations has a foil, the villain, typically a charismatic evildoer who represents, leads, or himself embodies the struggle the hero is up against. Post-modern fictional works have fomented the increased popularity of the antihero, who does not follow common conceptions of heroism. Examples of modern heroes are Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Bilbo Baggins, Luke Skywalker, and Superman.

Without Tali's skills there's no recording of Saren, so Shepard's quest fails right at the beginning of ME1.

And you fail at logic: Tali's skills are sufficient in that they give Shepard the evidence needed to move against Saren but your conclusion - that Tali's recording is the only possibly way Shepard could have dealt with Saren is just a non-sequitur. But hey, I wouldn't expect BSN to have a sixteen-year old's understanding of maths

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 08 octobre 2013 - 10:44 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

No, no, this csm guy is more related to Txgoldrush.

[Mangalores]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

With the same reasoning the most important characters of Star Wars a R2D2 and C3PO and Luke is no hero

Those two things are completely unrelated - simply put, a person is the hero because of what they do and not because they are the only person who could have done it. E.g. WP says:

I don't agree with the reasoning, just pointing out that there are plenty of side characters serving as plot vehicles to get the hero going so a lot of heroes wouldn't be heroes with this reasoning.

[ruggly]

Mangalores wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

With the same reasoning the most important characters of Star Wars a R2D2 and C3PO and Luke is no hero

Those two things are completely unrelated - simply put, a person is the hero because of what they do and not because they are the only person who could have done it. E.g. WP says:

I don't agree with the reasoning, just pointiioing out that there are plenty of side characters serving as plot vehicles to get the hero going so a lot of heroes wouldn't be heroes with this reasoning.

I don't think Shepard is particularly special by themselves, and really would not have gotten far without the crew behind them.  That being said, the messiah aspect they gave Shepard is pretty annoying to me

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...
And you fail at logic: Tali's skills are sufficient in that they give Shepard the evidence needed to move against Saren but your conclusion - that Tali's recording is the only possibly way Shepard could have dealt with Saren is just a non-sequitur. But hey, I wouldn't expect BSN to have a sixteen-year old's understanding of maths

Hey, I'm just explaining someone else's point here.

I suppose there's also an implicit assumption there that Tali's skills are more special than Shep's. Is Shepard just another mook with a gun?

[Ravensword]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No, no, this csm guy is more related to Txgoldrush.

Passive-aggressive version.

[Splinter Cell 108]

I don't have a problem with the ending being dark, yes that was definitely unavoidable, the Reapers are not something you can defeat easily.

Nonetheless, I feel BioWare did it wrong, they tried to pull something that did not fit and that was never going to fit regardless of how much they wanted to make it so. You cannot just push in Deus Ex into the last parts of the game and you just can't do something as radical as that. I honestly do not understand how they did not know this was going to cause trouble. 

For example, take a look at Game of Thrones, specifically the Red Wedding, even if it did cause a huge reaction it was not the type of reaction that has people sending death threats to George R.R. Martin. Why? Because this is expected of Game of Thrones, everyone knew that no character is above being killed, no matter who they are or how important they may be perceived as. It makes sense for Game of Thrones.

That's the ending's biggest problem, it makes no sense, and it leaves a lot of loose ends. Personally, I dislike loose ends in endings, it won't be any better if those loose ends are present in the ending to a trilogy. The star child's existence invalidades ME1, why would Sovereign need to go through all that hassle to open the way for the Reapers if the Star Child was there and also controls the Citadel. How does, shooting a pipe trigger an energy spike of that size? How does, grabbing some tubes upload Shepard's conscience into an AI? But more importantly, this is the one that makes the least sense, how does Shepard's disintegration lead to an energy wave making everyone into Synthetic/Organic hybrid abominations? A wave of energy certainly does not have those capabilities. 

Then there's every other question that comes after all those things, creating even more loose ends. It sounds to me like they really didn't put any effort into the ending IMO, and that isn't the only problem that plagues ME3 either. 

Modifié par Splinter Cell 108, 09 octobre 2013 - 03:40 .

[spirosz]

J. Reezy wrote...

csm4267 wrote...
 To have the most important game series of this generation left up to a bunch of amateur fan fiction writers cannot be allowed to happen.

Huh...interesting...

It's true homie.  Without it, we wouldn't get a series like God of War, Gears of War - they're all successful because of Mass Effect and it's homage to Chobot and her success in voice acting and respect for the amount of work it takes to become and develop such unique talent.  

[spirosz]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No, no, this csm guy is more related to Txgoldrush.

[dreamgazer]

spirosz wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No, no, this csm guy is more related to Txgoldrush.

I just don't get it, do I?