152 réponses à ce sujet

[Texhnolyze101]

I don't really care because whatever ending they make it couldn't possibly be any worse then ME3 ending.

[frylock23]

If they stick to a formula like they used in DAO, I think they'll be all right. I think that's what everyone expected for ME3, especially since everyone felt they were freed by it being the end of the trilogy. It wasn't like they had to worry about story choices anymore. They expected a full range of endings from the difficult full-on happy to the Reapers win with a range in between. Instead, we got three that felt like various degrees of losing with precious little win involved. I get that they wanted us all to make sacrifices, but if I was going to do it, I wanted that on my own terms, and not on some Reaper's terms.

[godModeAlpha]

A bit too early to start considering this IMHO ... So surprised this thread is still open

[SwobyJ]

I really wish that people would stop seeing Bioware as just one big thing. There are different branches of the company, and the dragon age bunch (with few exceptions) did not work on Mass Effect nor the other way around. Saying "WELL MASS EFFECT!!!!" has little bearing on Dragon Age Inquisition. 

 

Not to mention that the "40 endings" statement has been clarified to death. There will be a few unique endings with many tiny variations.

 

When they share employees, resources, and company philosophies, uh yes it matters.

 

It isn't a hard rule that "WELL MASS EFFECT", sure, so in that I agree with you - but it still matters. Heck, they're even openly speaking about using the same engine and porting aspects of gameplay and design from one franchise to another. It makes for more agile development.

[LinksOcarina]

This is pretty ignorant.

 

We actually do matter, and the existence of the Extended Cut proves this. If Bioware truly thought the amount of hate towards the ending was insignificant, they wouldn't have invested time, resources and effort towards creating a FREE dlc. It was obvious they had a significant PR problem on their hands. Opinions do matter, and for the people who hated the ending their voices were heard. So don't go telling me we don't matter, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

No, your opinion doesn't matter, none of ours do in the grand scheme of things in the end really. Your opinions are meaningless to me, and to others who don't care about them for many reasons really. Could be they disagree, could be they see you arrogant, and for me personally, because I hate people who think they are always right all the time. To be fair, it's a problem I have too, but i'm working on it. I agree there was a major PR problem, but that is the only thing true in the end, quality of what was shown regarding the content of the ending is personal taste, not a factual truth. It's like saying Game of Thrones is a terrible TV show; some people think it is, and they aren't wrong because it reflects personal taste of the content, or quality of the show. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, it matters that other opinions exist and it is subjective, not objective. 

 

As for the extended cut, that is also an odd thing to bring up, because, by your opinion presented before, it changed the endings. By most accounts, it "clarified" the endings by adding more to them, more uniqueness for you to watch. I feel like you are moving goalposts now by saying that the extended cut proves it matters, of course if you believe it, then that's fine. For PR and future business sure, I agree on that. If that is the case, though, if it was changed for what you need, why does it matter than when BioWare fixed the problem? It is like how Cd Projekt Red changed aspects of The Witcher 2, and made it less of a buggy mess and fan requests after the game was released, right? 

[AlanC9]

Then adds the option to let the world burn, and still doesn't add the most obvious choice that we picked in the whole trilogy, Shepard punching the kid in the face and asking him to take the reapers and shove them up his ass forever.

Shepard swings at kid, fist passes harmlessly through hologram...

Shepard: "Take your Reapers and shove them up your ass!"

Kid: "No."

I generally support adding more PC failure options, but these don't seem very interesting.

[Gtdef]

Actually quality is a factual truth and in this case an obvious one. They made an ending where they introduced a new antagonist, a new conflict to resolve and made the player guess the motives of the writers in order to make a choice (namely the destruction of mass relays that the game itself told us that it causes explosions that destroy whole systems). To add to this, you can't even make inquires because in the original version there are only 14 lines of dialogue between shepard and the catalyst. And then they said that people complain because the ending is "very dark". Try "out of place" and then we can talk about "dark". Obvious maneuvers are obvious as is insulting the customer's intelligence.

 

The whole game is about the reapers and the last few minutes is about organics vs synthetics. The only "clarity" that extended cut provided was more plot holes and a retcon. Saying that they want to preserve the "vision" of the writers is a joke especially when both ME2 and ME3 have so much fan service and after all it's the same company that said that the 2% matters. 

 

Sure individual opinions don't matter much but a consensus within the active community does. I think they failed to address it and evidently choose to dodge the topic all together at Pax East. 

[Gtdef]

Shepard swings at kid, fist passes harmlessly through hologram...

Shepard: "Take your Reapers and shove them up your ass!"

Kid: "No."

I generally support adding more PC failure options, but these don't seem very interesting.

 

 

You do understand that the kid actually said "yes", don't you?

"You can choose to destroy us, but the peace won't last" or something along these lines.

 

The most logical question shepard can ask is "Hey, can't you just.. leave? You even said it youself, your solution doesn't work, just take your toys and leave, never come back". But no, Shepard can only ask "and that will end the war?". Only thing that matters is stopping the reapers. That's the most basic solution and it worked all game along. Why shouldn't at least try it now?

[AlanC9]

You do understand that the kid actually said "yes", don't you?
"You can choose to destroy us, but the peace won't last" or something along these lines.

The most logical question shepard can ask is "Hey, can't you just.. leave? You even said it youself, your solution doesn't work, just take your toys and leave, never come back". But no, Shepard can only ask "and that will end the war?". Only thing that matters is stopping the reapers. That's the most basic solution and it worked all game along. Why shouldn't it now?

But it's not like the Catalyst controls the Reapers in real time by calling them up on a QEC. If he did the Crucible wave would be unnecessary in Control. You'd just swap out the Catalyst for Shepard and that would be that. Obviously, it does not work that way; we see that it doesn't. The Reapers have to be reprogrammed by the Crucible.

I agree that Shepard should have been allowed to ask about this, but it wouldn't have changed anything.

[Gtdef]

Because they did anyway except in control ending? We just had to destroy the mass relays and the geth along and suffer plot holes because quarians and shepard survive even if the catalyst says that they won't. But the problem here isn't what reapers can and can't do. I explained the problem 3 posts earlier.

[AlanC9]

Because they did anyway except in control ending? We just had to destroy the mass relays and the geth along and suffer plot holes because quarians and shepard survive even if the catalyst says that they won't. But the problem here isn't what reapers can and can't do. I explained the problem 3 posts earlier.

Actually, you just ranted a bit.

Look, if you want to make assumptions about how stuff works, that's OK. But when your assumptions start causing problems, it's the assumptions that have to go.

[Gtdef]

But that's the exact problem here, I'm forced to make assumptions. Because the information we get from the catalyst, doesn't match the goddamn codex. I said it in the first sentence "forces us to guess the intentions of the writers". There's the problem with the ending. There is no simple inquiry, there is nothing. Just an ai presenting us with the options without explaining what will happen.

 

Also the catalyst says that "the crucible is little more than a power source". That's everything we will learn. There is no clarity that the reapers aren't controlled directly from the catalyst. That's your assumption. I can't find any info that says that the catalyst is unable to control the reapers directly. You can't even ask him ^^

[AlanC9]

Actually quality is a factual truth and in this case an obvious one. They made an ending where they introduced a new antagonist, a new conflict to resolve and made the player guess the motives of the writers in order to make a choice (namely the destruction of mass relays that the game itself told us that it causes explosions that destroy whole systems).

Crashing asteroids into relays causes novas, sure. That doesn't mean that using the Crucible on them causes novas. And guessing the motivations of the writers doesn't come up. Before choosing you don't know that the relays will be destroyed, and after choosing you can plainly see that the Citadel Relay doesn't emit enough of an explosion to destroy the Citadel, let alone Earth

[AlanC9]

But that's the exact problem here, I'm forced to make assumptions. Because the information we get from the catalyst, doesn't match the goddamn codex. I said it in the first sentence "forces us to guess the intentions of the writers". There's the problem with the ending. There is no simple inquiry, there is nothing. Just an ai presenting us with the options without explaining what will happen.

Also the catalyst says that "the crucible is little more than a power source". That's everything we will learn. There is no clarity that the reapers aren't controlled directly from the catalyst. That's your assumption. I can't find any info that says that the catalyst is unable to control the reapers directly. You can't even ask him ^^

Sure, we have to make assumptions. My point was that my set of assumptions don't cause problems. Your set does. Your assumptions don't work as well as mine do. You should drop yours and use mine. Unless you like using assumptions that don't work. In that case, carry on.

Edit: But we should really take this to the ME3 Ending Whining Board

[Gtdef]

What does that even mean? So just because your assumptions are more agreeable everything is fine? ;p

 

I just want consistency which the ending lacks thus the comment about shepard just keep doing what he was doing all game along. If you can trick yourself into believing a parallel version of what actually happened that makes perfect sense congratulations. I do it for some of the less obvious problems but the ending has just too many problems for me to go along.

 

I'm trying to explain why.

 

Edit: We got caught up in the details but the main point stands because it's relevant to the thread. I can agree to disagree though so the thread goes back to DA.

[MrMrPendragon]

Well I guess this thread is about ME3's ending now...

Anyways, I'm not worried about the story in this game

[addiction21]

Well I guess this thread is about ME3's ending now...

Anyways, I'm not worried about the story in this game

 

Was it ever meant to be about something else?

 

The same people grinding the same axe.

[Bob from Accounting]

They should certainly try and do better than the God-awful suggestions made here...

 

The simple truth is that endings are immensely difficult to write well. I can count the number of stories in any medium whose endings I actually liked on a single hand. An ending that truly makes sense on both a narrative and thematic level in an epic story is pretty much a miracle. I can only think of one off the top of my head, and that's the ending to the original Matrix.

 

Considering that BioWare has it immensely more difficult, given they're telling a story with big choices, lots of companions that demand screentime, a protagonist that it supposed to somewhat reflect the player...frankly I think expecting a great ending is just not realistic. Given just how many huge problems present in ME 3's ending that either weren't noticed or were deemed acceptable, I just don't think BioWare is skilled enough. But then again, neither is anyone else, or I'd be spending my time on their forum.

 

That's pretty depressing.

[Mathias]

No, your opinion doesn't matter, none of ours do in the grand scheme of things in the end really. Your opinions are meaningless to me, and to others who don't care about them for many reasons really. Could be they disagree, could be they see you arrogant, and for me personally, because I hate people who think they are always right all the time. To be fair, it's a problem I have too, but i'm working on it. I agree there was a major PR problem, but that is the only thing true in the end, quality of what was shown regarding the content of the ending is personal taste, not a factual truth. It's like saying Game of Thrones is a terrible TV show; some people think it is, and they aren't wrong because it reflects personal taste of the content, or quality of the show. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, it matters that other opinions exist and it is subjective, not objective. 

 

As for the extended cut, that is also an odd thing to bring up, because, by your opinion presented before, it changed the endings. By most accounts, it "clarified" the endings by adding more to them, more uniqueness for you to watch. I feel like you are moving goalposts now by saying that the extended cut proves it matters, of course if you believe it, then that's fine. For PR and future business sure, I agree on that. If that is the case, though, if it was changed for what you need, why does it matter than when BioWare fixed the problem? It is like how Cd Projekt Red changed aspects of The Witcher 2, and made it less of a buggy mess and fan requests after the game was released, right? 

 

1. Opinions do matter, and they certainly can in the grand scheme of things if it means hurting the sales of future games. It was people's opinion that DA2 was a poor sequel, and once word of mouth got around, sales for the game plummeted and to this day looks to have sold roughly half of it's predecessor. Our opinions might be meaningless to you, because you're just some guy on the internet who likes to play video games. You have no stake in the matter. But I guarantee you there are people in Bioware who do care about these things, and who did take note over the ending backlash.

 

2. I brought up the Extended Cut not to change goals, but to use as the most relevant example of how people's opinions do matter. 

[LinksOcarina]

1. Opinions do matter, and they certainly can in the grand scheme of things if it means hurting the sales of future games. It was people's opinion that DA2 was a poor sequel, and once word of mouth got around, sales for the game plummeted and to this day looks to have sold roughly half of it's predecessor. Our opinions might be meaningless to you, because you're just some guy on the internet who likes to play video games. You have no stake in the matter. But I guarantee you there are people in Bioware who do care about these things, and who did take note over the ending backlash.

 

2. I brought up the Extended Cut not to change goals, but to use as the most relevant example of how people's opinions do matter. 

 

The sales figures of future games is a very stacked presumption at this point. Something like Call of Duty will always be profitable, despite diminishing returns over the past two years, because it makes money hand in fist that rival big blockbusters. Something like Dragon Age, as a series, has it's audience already.  It was 3.2 to 2.1 between the two I believe, and both games were still successful money-wise.

 

I would love a BioWare employee to come in here and maybe explain it better than I am, but we, as the fanbase, need to learn that offering opinions, and expecting them to matter, are two different things. I don't mind presenting opinions, but they still don't matter because it is an opinion only, and people need to recognize that.

 

It's just like that whole controversy regarding Tides of Numenara, the turn-based vs real-time mechanics debate that ended in a 51% v 49% split for which style would be in-game. Now, 49% of the people who backed it are either unhappy or wary of what they bought into because of one aspect they think is inferior, when its personal taste. It shouldn't matter what you think in the end like that. 

 

Anyway, i'm sorry if i'm beating a dead horse at this point. It just boils me when this always comes up.

[9TailsFox]

I don't really care because whatever ending they make it couldn't possibly be any worse then ME3 ending.

[9TailsFox]

The sales figures of future games is a very stacked presumption at this point. Something like Call of Duty will always be profitable, despite diminishing returns over the past two years, because it makes money hand in fist that rival big blockbusters. Something like Dragon Age, as a series, has it's audience already.  It was 3.2 to 2.1 between the two I believe, and both games were still successful money-wise.

 

I would love a BioWare employee to come in here and maybe explain it better than I am, but we, as the fanbase, need to learn that offering opinions, and expecting them to matter, are two different things. I don't mind presenting opinions, but they still don't matter because it is an opinion only, and people need to recognize that.

 

It's just like that whole controversy regarding Tides of Numenara, the turn-based vs real-time mechanics debate that ended in a 51% v 49% split for which style would be in-game. Now, 49% of the people who backed it are either unhappy or wary of what they bought into because of one aspect they think is inferior, when its personal taste. It shouldn't matter what you think in the end like that. 

 

Anyway, i'm sorry if i'm beating a dead horse at this point. It just boils me when this always comes up.

I can agree what you saying about opinions allot of people want realistic combat, realistic armour and weapons, I am not, I want flashy combat like DA2 well it become boring after some time but  it just need little improvement. But all opinions, and feelings aside ME3 was false advertisement and not delivered what's promised, you don't write apology letter if everything is right and you think your ending is good. if ending is good you don't need to make free DLC to explain it, people say extend cut fixed ending, no they did not, and it shouldn't be broken in the first place. And after all this you release fan service DLC(Not like I complain I liked it my favourite DLC.)

http://blog.bioware....012/03/21/4108/

Spoiler

[Grieving Natashina]

I don't really care because whatever ending they make it couldn't possibly be any worse then ME3 ending.

I take it you never played Neverwinter Nights 2?  ME3's ending was puzzling and unnecessarily esoteric, but I've seen anime that had much more confusing endings. 

 

 

Ending to Neverwinter Nights 2:

 

 

That's the worst ending I've ever seen from BioWare.  Rocks fall, everyone disappears, with what sounds like an exhausted dev narrating over a slide.  You find out their fate in the expansion...by a party member turned NPC that has 1-2 lines describing the fates of your companions.  I was furious, since I love the NWN games, but I got over it.  After playing the ME triology, I get a chuckle when folks say it's the worst ending that BioWare has ever done.  

 

The point I'm making is that you shouldn't let a confusing ending from a different writing/development team as Dragon Age sully your interest in the game itself.  While I'm sure the ME and DA teams talk sometimes, they aren't the same people.  They just work for the same company.  Plus, I think (thanks to a few gaming "journalists") too many folks are taking this 40 endings thing and running with it as far as they can.

[wolfhowwl]

That's the worst ending I've ever seen from BioWare.

No. That particular blunder belongs to Obsidian.

[Grieving Natashina]

No. That particular blunder belongs to Obsidian.

Don't excuse BioWare from that.  It wasn't just Obsidian alone that screwed that up.  Both companies screwed the pooch on that one, and members of both companies were apart of that awful ending.

 

http://en.wikipedia....winter_Nights_2

.BioWare joint CEO Ray Muzyka said "Neverwinter Nights remains one of the most important titles BioWare has ever created. We certainly plan to remain involved in the production and development of Neverwinter Nights 2". Obsidian employed several game designers from the defunct Black Isle Studios, which developed other Dungeons & Dragons role-playing video games such as Planescape: Torment, the Icewind Dale series, and the Baldur's Gate series.[27] Development of Neverwinter Nights 2 began in July 2004, when Obsidian assigned several staff members to work on the project.[28]

 

Staff included Darren Monahan, the producer of several Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games; Marc Holmes, art director of the first Neverwinter Nights; and Chris Avellone, lead designer of Planescape: Torment and Knights of the Old Republic II.

 

So, again, ME3 the worst ending BioWare has ever done?  I think not.  I also thought the last chapter of Neverwinter Nights OC wasn't very good either (including the ending.) 

 

I'm beginning to wonder if some ME fans just enjoy clinging to their bitterness over the ending.  I also wonder how many of these folks didn't have to deal with "Congralulation!  You have prooved the great justice of our culture," or similar endings over the years.  I think this is why I don't cling to my hatred of a game's ending.  NWN1 and NWN2, despite what I considered to be pretty bad endings, still got plenty of replay value from me.  I refuse to let 5-10 mins of poorly explained dialogue ruin my enjoyment of the rest of the game's experience.   I even didn't mind the ending of DA2, aside from that entire last act being rushed.  _{Thanks for that EA.}   

 

I'm not worried in about DA:I in any case.  Unlike DA2, it's had a lot of time in development and is having a fairly long beta.  When BioWare is given the time to polish their games, they've never disappointed me.   NWN2 and ME3 were the only endings I thought were weak, and ME3 didn't make me nearly as angry as NWN2 did.   <shrug>