692 réponses à ce sujet

[mopotter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Also - "sometimes it doesn't work that way". Sometimes it does. If I'm supposed to be able to influence the story at all it should be possible to do differently in different playthroughs. That's the massive strength of a game as a storytelling medium, and why losses can have such a big emotional impact (which is good), if they've happened because you've screwed up, or even if you didn't screw up but weren't good enough.

Surely you can't be saying that all losses should be avoidable, or under the player's control.

Yes, If they didn't want you to do this, they should not have made it possible in ME2.  

I bought ME2 expecting most of my team to die, Chris even said once that the three ME 1 LI were not in the game so they would survive for ME 3 so I didn't expect everyone to make it.  And in most of my games some died, in some of my games most of them died, But I accidently picked the "right" set of people in the right order and everyone survived.

 I liked what they did with Mordan and I didn't mind Thane's death.  But I really did expect one (and that is the main issue for me) just one ending where if your ems numbers were at the top without the MMO then Shepard and most of the team including the geth and Edi would survive, that there would be one ending showing Shepard looking at the destruction, the destroyed reapers and remembering those who didn't make it.    

[mopotter]

Almostfaceman wrote...

c091n87 wrote...

Regarding the ending, no matter how many times this or this, people keep pushing them for more. Technically, Mass Effect 3 reached its End Of Life as of March 5 2013. Essentially it has gone the way Windows XP will go in April 2014. No more support, no more updates, they are finished with the game.

Nobody's pushing them for more at this point. That's why there's a modding community taking up the job on its own. You're not telling us anything we don't already know. 

I even bought the whole series a 2nd time for the PC just because a modder did the MEHEM mod.  

Because I do love the game and can ignore the small problems in ME3 like too much auto dialoge, and no nuteral options, but I couldn't ignore the ending choices.  Bioware could have made some extra money by doing some kind of dlc showing Shepard actually survived and wasn't charred.  Instead, I thank the modders daily as I'm playing my favorite game again.

[mopotter]

Almostfaceman wrote...

c091n87 wrote...

My advice to you is to either move on or play something else.

Thanks for that. I'm here mainly for the Fan Creations threads and I pop into here to guage the interest in this game and who's still saying what. So, I guess I'm not moving on right now.

Say, you can move on as well if you want. 

Or, we can all visit whenever we want and talk about stuff. You know, like it's a free country or something. 

Yes.  

[mopotter]

Almostfaceman wrote...

c091n87 wrote...

Mass Effect 3 is not Burger King. You don't get to have it your way with an ending catered to your wishes. If I'm reading the "what *we* wanted" bit correctly.

Second, developer quotes, promises, etc don't mean squat. Do not classify as advertising, in other words. PR tells you what you want to hear in order to get you to buy the game. Third, holding a company responsible for this stuff for 2 years is completely insane. Even after they were found innocent of false advertising, people refuse to let this go.

The customer is not always right, but people are acting like "the customer is right and is never wrong". About the promises, about the ending, about everything. 

Most people, most reasonable consumers just get their money back. You were offered a refund (a consumer right), but people didn't take it and kept pressing the issue. This is no longer a simple consumer complaint. It has become a crusade against them. I personally feel sorry for all the stuff they had to put up with from their customers. It's gotten completely out of hand and needs to stop.   

The Burger King thing is irrelevent to what I brought up. Nobody said Bioware promised a menu before we got to buy the game then we picked what we wanted. 

I don't agree with anything else you said. We have no common ground. Companies exist to provide a service or product for consumers and then make a profit from that service or product. If they're not meeting customer expectations, they don't make a profit. Hence the term "the customer is always right." No customers = no company.

Developer quotes, blah blah blah do mean squat. It's the reason they bother to talk to magazines and customers - it's to sell a certain product and make sure folks know about that certain product. If that product turns out to not meet expectations, there's going to be backlash. It's really that simple.

Bioware hasn't had to put up with anything unique from customers. I don't feel sorry for them. What you may not realize is that they actually welcome feedback - even if they can't always give the customer what they want. Companies actually pay good money for this kind of feedback - I've been in that business. 

No matter what business you're in there will always, ALWAYS be customer complaints. A good company can figure out when they're reaching their target market share despite the complaints, or if the complaints are numerous enough to indicate a hit to their profit or company image. 

Nobody offered me a refund. Don't know what you're talking about. In my case, I actually offered to pay for DLC that fixed the ending, because I thought most of the gaming experience was great quality. I can't speak for anyone else.

Yes.  I was also one who said I would pay for a dlc.    I like the idea that if you liked the 3 endings as they were, you didn't have to purchase it, and if you did want it you could pay for it.    

[Mcfly616]

OP contradicts the title of the thread, seeing as how it's quite subjective. And Bioware never said "artistic integrity".

[AlanC9]

mopotter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Surely you can't be saying that all losses should be avoidable, or under the player's control.

Yes, If they didn't want you to do this, they should not have made it possible in ME2.  

I agree. This was a regrettable fault in ME2's design, and violated the precedent set at Virmire. You can work around it by doing the Reaper IFF mission the moment it becomes available, which is my preferred playstyle. (IIRC a dev once implied that doing this was the original design intent, but I don't have a link to where that was said.)

 I liked what they did with Mordan and I didn't mind Thane's death.  But I really did expect one (and that is the main issue for me) just one ending where if your ems numbers were at the top without the MMO then Shepard and most of the team including the geth and Edi would survive, that there would be one ending showing Shepard looking at the destruction, the destroyed reapers and remembering those who didn't make it.    

Is this a fault of the design, or merely a problem with the presentation of high-EMS Destroy? Edit: NM... Shepard or no, the geth and EDI still buy it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 janvier 2014 - 02:58 .

[jamesp81]

Roux72 wrote...

If Bioware had owned the endings (and no hiding behind artistic integrity does not in any way shape or form constitute owning up to a mistake), I could at least have respected them for that. If they had come out and said, "We're sorry, EA was on our backs for a holiday release, we had to retcon the ending, and we were rushed" - I could have respected them for being honest.

As a practical matter, they can't publicly bad mouth the corporation who owns them.  That was never going to happen.

That said, yes, their response should've been different.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

I agree. This was a regrettable fault in ME2's design, and violated the precedent set at Virmire. You can work around it by doing the Reaper IFF mission the moment it becomes available, which is my preferred playstyle. (IIRC a dev once implied that doing this was the original design intent, but I don't have a link to where that was said.)

Why is it a regrettable fault in ME2's design, and not a regrettable fault in ME3's design?

Put in the effort, get good results.

One could argue it was too easy in ME2 to get optimal results.  But I contest the assertion that the system itself was a flaw.

Modifié par iakus, 14 janvier 2014 - 03:40 .

[Roux72]

c091n87 wrote...

Bioware knew what we wanted, because they marketed the game accurately. They just didn't live up to their marketing. That really cheesed off a lot of folks.

Mass Effect 3 is not Burger King. You don't get to have it your way with an ending catered to your wishes. If I'm reading the "what *we* wanted" bit correctly.

Second, developer quotes, promises, etc don't mean squat. Do not classify as advertising, in other words. PR tells you what you want to hear in order to get you to buy the game. Third, holding a company responsible for this stuff for 2 years is completely insane. Even after they were found innocent of false advertising, people refuse to let this go.

The customer is not always right, but people are acting like "the customer is right and is never wrong". About the promises, about the ending, about everything. 

Most people, most reasonable consumers just get their money back. You were offered a refund (a consumer right), but people didn't take it and kept pressing the issue. This is no longer a simple consumer complaint. It has become a crusade against them. I personally feel sorry for all the stuff they had to put up with from their customers. It's gotten completely out of hand and needs to stop.   

What are you talking about? No one is asserting ny of that? And of course they were found innocent of false advertising. Can you imagine the legal power that Bioware can afford with EA backing them? Who could afford to go up against that? I love people who take court case results as some kind of word of God...

You know what? Maybe we do need a crusade. And why do you feel sorry for them, they're rolling in more do than most of us will ever see... You honestly think they give two flying !@#$s about what a bunch fans post in forums. Clearly not.

[dreamgazer]

Nevermind.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 14 janvier 2014 - 04:13 .

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I agree. This was a regrettable fault in ME2's design, and violated the precedent set at Virmire. You can work around it by doing the Reaper IFF mission the moment it becomes available, which is my preferred playstyle. (IIRC a dev once implied that doing this was the original design intent, but I don't have a link to where that was said.)

Why is it a regrettable fault in ME2's design, and not a regrettable fault in ME3's design?

Put in the effort, get good results.

One could argue it was too easy in ME2 to get optimal results.  But I contest the assertion that the system itself was a flaw.

Because ME3 returned to original hard choices without easy way out (Virmire, Destiny Ascencion) which were milked in ME2 (only one similar choice in tiny side mission was presented here)?

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I agree. This was a regrettable fault in ME2's design, and violated the precedent set at Virmire. You can work around it by doing the Reaper IFF mission the moment it becomes available, which is my preferred playstyle. (IIRC a dev once implied that doing this was the original design intent, but I don't have a link to where that was said.)

Why is it a regrettable fault in ME2's design, and not a regrettable fault in ME3's design?

Just going with mopotter's premise -- if that's not how Bio wanted to do ME3, they shouldn't have done ME2 that way.

Though yes, my personal tastes agree with Bio's rather than yours.

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

Because ME3 returned to original hard choices without easy way out (Virmire, Destiny Ascencion) which were milked in ME2 (only one similar choice in tiny side mission was presented here)?

I still find it funny that people can compare the fate of one soldier or even one dreadnought with restructuring the face of the galaxy like they are identical comparisons 

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Because ME3 returned to original hard choices without easy way out (Virmire, Destiny Ascencion) which were milked in ME2 (only one similar choice in tiny side mission was presented here)?

I still find it funny that people can compare the fate of one soldier or even one dreadnought with restructuring the face of the galaxy like they are identical comparisons 

I didn't change universe, I just let die one soldier, one robot and rest of toaster not fried near Rannoch, so not so much difference.

But hey, you are the guy who once claim words many and countless as synonyms so you should be OK with hyperbolism.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Just going with mopotter's premise -- if that's not how Bio wanted to do ME3, they shouldn't have done ME2 that way.

Though yes, my personal tastes agree with Bio's rather than yours.

And how do you know this wasn't just Bioware wildly overcomensating (as they are wont to do) with fan feedback?

"I hate the Mako"=no more planetary exploration and Hammerhead missions
"Too much inventory"=no inventory at all
"Elevators are boring"=load screens
"The minigames are boring"=minigames completely removed

And of course "The Suicide Mission was too easy" = Kobyashi Maru ending

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

But hey, you are the guy who once claim words many and countless as synonyms so you should be OK with hyperbolism.

OT, but...

http://thesaurus.com/browse/many

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Because ME3 returned to original hard choices without easy way out (Virmire, Destiny Ascencion) which were milked in ME2 (only one similar choice in tiny side mission was presented here)?

I still find it funny that people can compare the fate of one soldier or even one dreadnought with restructuring the face of the galaxy like they are identical comparisons 

Nobody is saying they're "identical", but they are, indeed, built on the same "no way out" big-decision foundation.

Shrugging it off with a laugh won't change that.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Nobody is saying they're "identical", but they are, indeed, built on the same "no way out" big-decision foundation.

Shrugging it off with a laugh won't change that.

Except this is a much bigger decision.  It's comparing the death of one person to the death of an entire nation and going "po-tay-to, po-tah-to"

As such, they should be handled much differently.  And frankly, Virmire was in fact handled much better in any case.

Modifié par iakus, 14 janvier 2014 - 04:40 .

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

But hey, you are the guy who once claim words many and countless as synonyms so you should be OK with hyperbolism.

OT, but...

http://thesaurus.com/browse/many

But they definitely weren't in this claim of yours.

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

iakus wrote...

Yes, some people have different tastes.

One would think that a game that boasts innumerable endings would have cast a wider net, given Bioware is trying to boaden their audience.

Instead, they managed to shrink it.  I would not call that a win.

Please, show me some BW quote about "innumerable endings".

And missing Iakus is hadly shrinking of net. 

There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t
say any more than that…”

Mike Gamble.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Nobody is saying they're "identical", but they are, indeed, built on the same "no way out" big-decision foundation.

Shrugging it off with a laugh won't change that.

Except this is a much bigger decision.  It's comparing the death of one person to the death of an entire nation and going "po-tay-to, po-tah-to"

More like: "Small potato, big potato, HUGE potato".  In the moment, they're all significant. 

As such, they should be handled much differently.  And frankly, Virmire was in fact handled much better in any case.

Eh, Virmire forced you to choose between two squad members instead of the entire available roster.  That's very restrictive in terms of player agency. 

[Iakus]

[quote]dreamgazer wrote...
More like: "Small potato, big potato, HUGE potato". In the moment, they're all significant.
[/quote]

And ME3 deals with the choice to restructure the galaxy with all the clinical detatchment of a potato[/quote

Eh, Virmire forced you to choose between two squad members instead of the entire available roster.  That's very restrictive in terms of player agency. 
[/quote]

And the handling of the choice was still done better.  You get a last talk with the person you leave behind. You can apologize, or try to reassure them that you'll try to save him.her too.  It didn't shrink from showing the one you left behind was missed.    And afterwards there's a chance to reflect on the loss.

Heck I love how Shepard can later say "Kaidan's death is on me!"

Modifié par iakus, 14 janvier 2014 - 05:08 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Nobody is saying they're "identical", but they are, indeed, built on the same "no way out" big-decision foundation.

Shrugging it off with a laugh won't change that.

Except this is a much bigger decision.  It's comparing the death of one person to the death of an entire nation and going "po-tay-to, po-tah-to"

As such, they should be handled much differently.  And frankly, Virmire was in fact handled much better in any case.

Wait... your actual position is that the more important a decision is, the more it needs to have a golden perfect option?

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
And the handling of the choice was still done better.  You get a last talk with the person you leave behind. You can apologize, or try to reassure them that you'll try to save him.her too.  It didn't shrink from showing the one you left behind was missed.    And afterwards there's a chance to reflect on the loss.

Heck I love how Shepard can later say "Kaidan's death is on me!"

I can't help but feel desperation in the request to be able to talk with the geth and/or EDI before Destroy happens. Had they included a scene where the geth approve or demonstrate their understanding of your decision, would it really gel with their portrayal in the rest of the series? The geth are often portrayed as extremely selfish, and necessarily so, since no one has looked out for their interests the whole series except perhaps Shepard. They would choose Synthesis, full stop. EDI would as well.

It'd feel insulting to me. The two viable scenarios for Destroy from a design perspective are sacrificing the geth and EDI knowing they'd choose Synthesis, or not including their sacrifice at all. Approval that goes against character portrayal would be even worse. It'd be character assassination combined with sacrifice.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 14 janvier 2014 - 05:11 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
And the handling of the choice was still done better.  You get a last talk with the person you leave behind. You can apologize, or try to reassure them that you'll try to save him.her too.  It didn't shrink from showing the one you left behind was missed.    And afterwards there's a chance to reflect on the loss.

Heck I love how Shepard can later say "Kaidan's death is on me!"

I coukd have done with a bit less foreshadowing myself, and the actual implementation of the choice is awfully clunky.