129 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

No it isn't. What support would she offer the tanks? Tanks are for supporting  ground troops

 

This is the future though, where people can create explosions with their minds (well by making hand gestures at their enemies). Things like biotics, personal shields, and the ability to shoot the elements out of holographic projections on one's wrist probably greatly changed the nature of combat. What applies today might not be true for the tomorrow of Mass Effect.

 

That's the serious answer any way. The real answer is because ___  Trope.

[Farangbaa]

Making hand gestures at their enemies

[Dale]

The more research I do on this game the more I see the futility of starting this thread.  Last week I spent the entire morning searching the web forums to find ME3 is dead.   Most all thread titles are the same and are 1-2 years old – with one or two that are a month old. 

 

The only active forum I could find -- is this one which is a pitifully small percentage of the world playing ME3.  Die hards.  Like me, many folks were propelled to purchase ME3 because of ME2.  

 

My copy-pasting some dozen URLs of dead forum websites would likely be considered spam by the moderators – so I will respect the forum rules to refrain from such.  I did find a write up from Forbes.   You will see that I’m not so “off the wall” for starting this thread – though futile.

 

.====================================================================

 

It seems like a win-win to me. Releasing free DLC would show that they’re not greedy tyrants exploiting the concept of bonus content. Updating the ending with more substance would show that they can admit when they’re wrong, and fans would likely breathe a collective sigh of relief as they got some much needed resolution.

 

Will they do such a thing? I doubt it. Admitting mistakes is one thing, but going back and reshooting the ending would show they dropped the ball to an incredible degree, something I highly doubt they’d own up to. Additionally, the end of the game greets you with a message that Shepard will have further adventures with more DLC down the line. Expected, but if they’re trying to fix their poor ending with more paid DLC, they’re really barking up the wrong tree with fans who are already furious with them for exploiting the concept in the first place, and it would be like making them pay extra to see Bioware’s own mistake fixed.

 

.==================================================================

 

Time for me “to move on”.  I sincerely hope that I’m 100% WRONG!  But the talk about ME4 – I’ll take with a grain of salt.  That’s like announcing a birthday party to be held in a graveyard.

[Vazgen]

It seems like a win-win to me. Releasing free DLC would show that they’re not greedy tyrants exploiting the concept of bonus content. Updating the ending with more substance would show that they can admit when they’re wrong, and fans would likely breathe a collective sigh of relief as they got some much needed resolution.

I wouldn't call it a win-win situation. First, for it to be different from Extended Cut, a lot of work will be required and a lot of time. Free DLC doesn't bring money and thus, Bioware will have to pay the developers working on it from their own pocket. Second, the team is already working on ME:Next with the new engine and possibilities, taking them away from that to work on a two-year old game is not a good decision because a lot of people have moved on, as you noted, thus a much smaller part of the fanbase will experience it.

I prefer their focus to be on ME:Next, to create an amazing game for us all to experience. Dwelling in the past is not a way forward

[InWeirdPeril]

I wouldn't call it a win-win situation. First, for it to be different from Extended Cut, a lot of work will be required and a lot of time. Free DLC doesn't bring money and thus, Bioware will have to pay the developers working on it from their own pocket. Second, the team is already working on ME:Next with the new engine and possibilities, taking them away from that to work on a two-year old game is not a good decision because a lot of people have moved on, as you noted, thus a much smaller part of the fanbase will experience it.

I prefer their focus to be on ME:Next, to create an amazing game for us all to experience. Dwelling in the past is not a way forward

 

Some valid points in there, but also some questionable ones.

I get what you are saying, don't get me wrong please.

 

Saying releasing Free DLCs would not make them money is questionable at best. Take the EC... it was a free DLC and in the long run was and will make them money. I would imagine that a lot of players would have passed on any payed DLC after they where too upset with the original endings. Or those that waited for a bit, would not have picked up the game at all.

 

There are examples where games received "free" content years later that fixed things, added story and so on when it had a re-release. It's not that uncommon.

And adding a little bit more closure to the endings (not putting in new ones mind you) in a remastered trilogy release could ultimately help sales with the new game AND the remastered Trilogy. If not only to get old disgruntled players back, but to not loose potential new ones that never played 1 to 3 and wanted to try it with the remastered release but are so just as upset with the endings as some of us are right now. And releasing a remastered version costs time and money too. So, they could use that to add it. It would be a rather cheap way actually.

 

Same goes for a "free" D1 DLC that bridges the Trilogy and New Game properly, providing said closure. I would imagine pre-orders would go through the roof. And sales during the first few weeks are the ones they actually make money off of. Getting the game a few months later reduces that amount significantly.

 

Hell, it would probably make them a good chunk of money if they released it as a payed DLC for either the new game or a remastered release...

 

What I am trying to say is, that free does not mean loosing or not making money per se.

[Farangbaa]

People will buy ME4 regardless.

[Vazgen]

Some valid points in there, but also some questionable ones.

I get what you are saying, don't get me wrong please.

 

Saying releasing Free DLCs would not make them money is questionable at best. Take the EC... it was a free DLC and in the long run was and will make them money. I would imagine that a lot of players would have passed on any payed DLC after they where too upset with the original endings. Or those that waited for a bit, would not have picked up the game at all.

 

There are examples where games received "free" content years later that fixed things, added story and so on when it had a re-release. It's not that uncommon.

And adding a little bit more closure to the endings (not putting in new ones mind you) in a remastered trilogy release could ultimately help sales with the new game AND the remastered Trilogy. If not only to get old disgruntled players back, but to not loose potential new ones that never played 1 to 3 and wanted to try it with the remastered release but are so just as upset with the endings as some of us are right now. And releasing a remastered version costs time and money too. So, they could use that to add it. It would be a rather cheap way actually.

 

Same goes for a "free" D1 DLC that bridges the Trilogy and New Game properly, providing said closure. I would imagine pre-orders would go through the roof. And sales during the first few weeks are the ones they actually make money off of. Getting the game a few months later reduces that amount significantly.

 

Hell, it would probably make them a good chunk of money if they released it as a payed DLC for either the new game or a remastered release...

 

What I am trying to say is, that free does not mean loosing or not making money per se.

That depends on how many people will be willing to get it. A free D1 DLC for ME:Next is a whole another thing, because it will be tied to the next game and will be geared towards buyers of ME:Next. Releasing a free ending DLC now, for example, is a another matter and will be focused on an audience that still plays ME which is small and composed of die-hard fans mostly (who will get ME:Next anyway, assuming it's good, of course). 

I'm not talking about remastered trilogy. If that's the case, this ending DLC loses its meaning because they can just throw it in the remastered game and be done with it. I hope they won't make a remastered version, really. They'd better to focus entirely on the next game rather than spread themselves too thin while working on older titles.

If ME:Next is good people will buy it. Few people will deny themselves a good game just because they didn't like how previous games in that universe ended (and I doubt ending DLC will change anything for those people). The only thing they will lose on is the amount of preorders - many people will be weary to preorder the game after ME3 ending. But I doubt that preorders make that large chunk of their income to release a free DLC that helps with that. And they can always get that money by releasing a few editions of the game afterwards.

And about losing money, they may get it back in the future (again, depends on the number of people who'll experience the DLC) but they will need to spend their own money to pay the developers at the current point (or take that money from ME:Next budget). I highly doubt that a significant investment (required to "fix" an ending) will be worth it. And without it you'll just get a slightly edited version of Extended Cut which will ****** off people waiting for the new ending even more.

[InWeirdPeril]

As one of the few people you mention, such a DLC (or rather story bit in the new game) will actually make or break the new game for me. Disappointment sits deep. And I am not willing to compromise. I have no trouble walking away from a game that is considered good by anyone if it just won't appeal to me. I passed on good games before, like The Last of us, Walking Dead by Telltale and a ton of others because they all had something I did not enjoy. Simple as that. But that is just me and also beside the point. I wonder how long it will take for the usual suspects to show up and tell me they know better what I will buy... huh...

 

What I tried to say is that Free stuff != not making money(or even loosing money). Yeah I know, developer sin... double negating.

The Bigger picture is what BW has to see. A concept, quite frankly, most people don't seem to grasp.

It's not about what we want in the end, just what makes sense for them from a business standpoint. Whatever that may be.

That's how the EC came to be. From the Fallout they knew what it would mean in the long run and it was not a good business decision to ignore it.

That decision will then lead to more, equal or less sales. Showing them if it was the right decision or not. And if not, how they will fix it.

It can be fixed by free stuff or in a different way.

[Vazgen]

As one of the few people you mention, such a DLC (or rather story bit in the new game) will actually make or break the new game for me. Disappointment sits deep. And I am not willing to compromise. I have no trouble walking away from a game that is considered good by anyone if it just won't appeal to me. I passed on good games before, like The Last of us, Walking Dead by Telltale and a ton of others because they all had something I did not enjoy. Simple as that. But that is just me and also beside the point. I wonder how long it will take for the usual suspects to show up and tell me they know better what I will buy... huh...

 

What I tried to say is that Free stuff != not making money(or even loosing money). Yeah I know, developer sin... double negating.

The Bigger picture is what BW has to see. A concept, quite frankly, most people don't seem to grasp.

It's not about what we want in the end, just what makes sense for them from a business standpoint. Whatever that may be.

That's how the EC came to be. From the Fallout they knew what it would mean in the long run and it was not a good business decision to ignore it.

That decision will then lead to more, equal or less sales. Showing them if it was the right decision or not. And if not, how they will fix it.

It can be fixed by free stuff or in a different way.

I know there are people for whom that will make all the difference in the world. You are not willing to give the new game a chance if they don't change the ending of the previous game. I accept that (though don't understand). The point is in the number of these people. If they are a majority then it makes perfect sense for the Bioware to release this DLC, either now or alongside ME:Next. If they are only a minor part of the target audience (which I think to be the case), spending resources on creating this DLC is not worth it. We can only speculate, Bioware has market analytics to determine just that.

Free stuff can make money, no doubt about that. But it creates money in long-term perspective. In short-term, the company has to invest its own capital and hope it will impact the audience enough to get that money back and even more via other products. Again, it is related to the number of people who want this DLC. I personally don't.

 

I view ME:Next as a new game in the universe I love. I don't think of it as a continuation of the trilogy. Trilogy was a great journey but it came to an end. I look forward to what comes next.

I'll not preorder ME:Next, because I never preorder games. I always get them some time after the release when user reviews are up and I can make my decision based on the experience of other players. 

[InWeirdPeril]

I know there are people for whom that will make all the difference in the world. You are not willing to give the new game a chance if they don't change the ending of the previous game. I accept that (though don't understand). The point is in the number of these people. If they are a majority then it makes perfect sense for the Bioware to release this DLC, either now or alongside ME:Next. If they are only a minor part of the target audience (which I think to be the case), spending resources on creating this DLC is not worth it. We can only speculate, Bioware has market analytics to determine just that.

Free stuff can make money, no doubt about that. But it creates money in long-term perspective. In short-term, the company has to invest its own capital and hope it will impact the audience enough to get that money back and even more via other products. Again, it is related to the number of people who want this DLC. I personally don't.

 

I view ME:Next as a new game in the universe I love. I don't think of it as a continuation of the trilogy. Trilogy was a great journey but it came to an end. I look forward to what comes next.

I'll not preorder ME:Next, because I never preorder games. I always get them some time after the release when user reviews are up and I can make my decision based on the experience of other players. 

 

You are right of course, that it all depends on the amount of people no doubt about it. I am right there with you. And I know, people like me are probably the minority.

 

One thing I should mention though is that I am... somewhat ok with the endings as they are now. Even though I don't particularly like them. I don't want them to be changed per se. What I want in a DLC or rather story bit for the new game is them fixing that lack of closure, have some resolution. That they elaborate properly on what happened. In Detail. That would not change the endings, only clear things up. Though granted with a preferably happier tone for the aftermath. That's all. And in my case they could easily fix that by removing the breath scene and putting in a slide with my Shep and her LI looking at each other with a smile under the sunset... by now, that would be enough for me. Yep Yep, romantic and such ^^

 

I envy you for your point of view. That you can accept/love the ME Universe as it is. I am guessing that your interest in ME and your experience hinges on different things than mine and that is totally fine by me.

[Gladerunner]

While I understand everyone has their perfectly ideal ending, and that DLC would be the medium to present it, the Ending was fine given the circumstances. Not every choice can effect the ending, because the developers can hardly account for every permutation, let alone make every choice have a discernible impact.

Victory in ME3 was never certain, and the crucible was a wild card to begin with. While I would enjoy it being flexible, that would be unrealistic.

While the ending was rather condensed, it was the best they could do without changing everything. I would have prefered the Dark Energy crisis, simply because the Reaper's conflict motivation was deeply hypocritical. If their objective is to stop organic synthetic conflict, why are they actively provoking it by upgrading the Geth?

The prospect of a better ending is also an unknown. The grass is not always greener on the other side. The extended cut was what we deserved and nothing more.

Mass Effect ended dramatically, and my only problem was that it put theatrical combat ahead of theatrical realism. Alas, that's a whole other can of worms I dare not unleash.

[InWeirdPeril]

That's the awesome thing about opinions, everyone has one and they are all pretty interesting to see.

The only frustrating thing is that some people are just not capable, for whatever reason,to accept a difference of opinion or even worse, read their own version of what stands against their own opinion in every reply that is not like their own. But hey, there are probably hecklers no matter where you look

 

While it makes me sad to see so many people happy to abandon the trilogy, I can accept that they do and wont hold it against them

Anyhow, fixing the ME3 ending is pretty much out of the question. That's for sure. But the lack of closure could happen in someway in the beginning or mid section of the new game. And that is my personal breaking point where forgiveness is out of the question if ignored. And while it is true that forgiveness can only be given, personally and in this case, I need some kind of incentive to consider giving it. Being forgiven is not a right after all but a compromise would be enough to actually consider it. Depending on a couple of things of course. Timeline, Reboot or not etc. Time will tell eventually. I kind of have high hopes for a tidbit of information on that account for N7 day to see if this one will stay in the ME Universe.

[Vazgen]

That's the awesome thing about opinions, everyone has one and they are all pretty interesting to see.

The only frustrating thing is that some people are just not capable, for whatever reason,to accept a difference of opinion or even worse, read their own version of what stands against their own opinion in every reply that is not like their own. But hey, there are probably hecklers no matter where you look

 

While it makes me sad to see so many people happy to abandon the trilogy, I can accept that they do and wont hold it against them

Anyhow, fixing the ME3 ending is pretty much out of the question. That's for sure. But the lack of closure could happen in someway in the beginning or mid section of the new game. And that is my personal breaking point where forgiveness is out of the question if ignored. And while it is true that forgiveness can only be given, personally and in this case, I need some kind of incentive to consider giving it. Being forgiven is not a right after all but a compromise would be enough to actually consider it. Depending on a couple of things of course. Timeline, Reboot or not etc. Time will tell eventually. I kind of have high hopes for a tidbit of information on that account for N7 day to see if this one will stay in the ME Universe.

Abandoning the trilogy? I'm playing it right now! Heck, I'm more invested than I was when first played through it as I'm writing a fiction about my character!

[Coyotebay]

I'm going to play ME3 again soon.  I have my new ME2 save with a live Miranda (she died in my last one) and I can't wait.  I don't know what the fuss is about anymore.  The reason most people were upset was because Shepard died.  Most agree that Starbrat was a stupid idea, that and introducing this whole new theme in the last ten minutes of the game that the story was all about the war between organics and synthetics, when it was never about that.  It was always about free will and self-determination.  That's what the Krogan and Geth stories were all about.  So you can dismiss Starbrat's mumbo jumbo because you know he is the creation of an egomaniacal species who believed themselves superior to everything else in the galaxy.  But you still don't get every choice under the sun, and they all have a downside.  I take synthesis because I think control is creepy and I don't want EDI to die.  I know synthesis is stupid space magic but I don't care.  And if you just hate all the choices then play the MEHEM ending.  The Crucible activates automatically after it docks and turns on as Shepard collapses, releases its destructo beam that only blows up Reapers, and everyone lives.  I think there really are enough endings to satisfy everyone.

[Farangbaa]

Ooh, I'm going to do an IT favourite here:

 

If you think organics vs synthetics is a new theme in the game, you didn't pay attention

[Coyotebay]

Ooh, I'm going to do an IT favourite here:

 

If you think organics vs synthetics is a new theme in the game, you didn't pay attention

Organics and synthetics going to war because synthetics started becoming superior and wanted to exterminate organics, no, that was not a main theme.  That was not a larger threat or a significant problem in the galaxy as presented in the major story arc, it was something that got thrown out there by Starbrat at the end in a bunch of exposition that left everyone going, "Huh?".   The Geth going to war with the Quarrians was over self-determination.  The Quarrians created the problem.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Ooh, I'm going to do an IT favourite here:

 

If you think organics vs synthetics is a new theme in the game, you didn't pay attention

 

Organics vs Synthetics is a theme but that's a very superficial way to describe it. Like if I say a story is about 'hope' is the story exploring that hope is a good thing or a bad thing, or is it leaving it up to the viewer to decide. In Mass Effect's case as the series progressed it wasn't really an open exploration of the conflict from every facet, instead the games had very specific take on the nature of the conflict. What's present in ending is very different from what the rest of the series had to say and that contrast is stark and unsettling for some, like me. An example is to compare how something like the Iron Giant and the Terminator. You can say both are about O vs S but they have different things to say.

[Farangbaa]

Organics and synthetics going to war because synthetics started becoming superior and wanted to exterminate organics, no, that was not a main theme.  That was not a larger threat or a significant problem in the galaxy as presented in the major story arc, it was something that got thrown out there by Starbrat at the end in a bunch of exposition that left everyone going, "Huh?".   The Geth going to war with the Quarrians was over self-determination.  The Quarrians created the problem.

 

That's not the conflict. The conflict arises from organics' needs to control their creations, to which the created rebel, which is EXACTLY what happened.

 

 

Organics vs Synthetics is a theme but that's a very superficial way to describe it. Like if I say a story is about 'hope' is the story exploring that hope is a good thing or a bad thing, or is it leaving it up to the viewer to decide. In Mass Effect's case as the series progressed it wasn't really an open exploration of the conflict from every facet, instead the games had very specific take on the nature of the conflict. What's present in ending is very different from what the rest of the series had to say and that contrast is stark and unsettling for some, like me. An example is to compare how something like the Iron Giant and the Terminator. You can say both are about O vs S but they have different things to say.

 

I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say here. I think it helped immensely for me to accept the conflict because it's something that has been discussed for decades.., centuries even, in the real world. (I'd provide a link, but I'm sure you are aware). I needed no convincing by the Catalyst.

[Coyotebay]

That's not the conflict. The conflict arises from organics' needs to control their creations, to which the created rebel, which is EXACTLY what happened.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say here. I think it helped immensely for me to accept the conflict because it's something that has been discussed for decades.., centuries even, in the real world. (I'd provide a link, but I'm sure you are aware). I needed no convincing by the Catalyst.

Organics' need to control their creations is a gross generalization, that's the whole problem with the Reaper argument.  The conflict between Geth and Quarians was specific to Geths and Quarians, the Geths had no issue with any other species.  And in the story, you have the choice to side with the Geth or achieve peace between the Geths and the Quarians, which completely blows away the Reaper argument.

 

In the real world we're not at the point yet to see what will happen if we ever produce a truly sentient AI. we'll only know for sure when we actually create one.

 

I think a lot of writers have been a bit too influenced by Terminator.  War between men and cyborgs is cool and exciting and all that.  I think in the real world it would be very different, and there is going to be a very natural merging of technology and biology not terribly different from synthesis, but that will happen over a very long time and not the blink of an eye.

[Farangbaa]

Organics' need to control their creations is a gross generalization, that's the whole problem with the Reaper argument.  The conflict between Geth and Quarians was specific to Geths and Quarians, the Geths had no issue with any other species.  And in the story, you have the choice to side with the Geth or achieve peace between the Geths and the Quarians, which completely blows away the Reaper argument.

Doesn't change anything. Even if the peace you achieve is eternal, the following still applies:

All organics will create synthetics.

Making 1 species of AI achieve peace with 1 species of organics doesn't change that it will happen again.
 

I think a lot of writers have been a bit too influenced by Terminator.  War between men and cyborgs is cool and exciting and all that.  I think in the real world it would be very different, and there is going to be a very natural merging of technology and biology not terribly different from synthesis, but that will happen over a very long time and not the blink of an eye.

On this I agree. Synthesis will be end state of life.

If AI doesn't kill us first

[Killdren88]

Even though I've just recently got over it...The Dragon Age stuff kept my mind occupied..and I've somewhat became at peace with this..I'd buy this in a heart beat. does it make me gullible fodder to be exploited? Yes it does. Does it set a bad precedent? Yes it does. But to me 100% frank I really don't care. if by reopening that would it not only heals the would but removes the scars along with it then, I would shamelessly pay for something like this.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say here. I think it helped immensely for me to accept the conflict because it's something that has been discussed for decades.., centuries even, in the real world. (I'd provide a link, but I'm sure you are aware). I needed no convincing by the Catalyst.

 

The problem is that Mass Effect is a story. The games, especially ME3, constantly build up the humanity of the synthetic characters and stripping them of their alienness, even going so far as to start ignoring that whole genocide thing that happened with the Geth and the Quarians. By the time we're marching into the final battle against the Reapers the AI characters are the nicest and most reasonable people in the galaxy. All of this was building up to something. What I interpreted it as is that AI weren't some incomprehensible other but humans with metal skin. That conflict wasn't a result of some inseparable divide between organics and synthetics, but rather biases that exist today. In this view the conflicts weren't so much a reflection of a technical singularity but rather tensions that we see right now in the news and in our history books

 

With the Catalyst revelation this is completely changed. The nature of the conflict goes back to where it was in ME1. The Catalysts goal and the introduction of Synthesis also undid much of the development that happened with the AI characters. I think it's telling that Shepard can neither argue with the Catalyst, bring up Rannoch, or reflect on how the events of the story fit into the Catalysts view. While the Catalyst talks about this inevitable conflict it is very possible that right outside the Geth are fighting with the Quarians and there is a pilot who loves a robot. Although, yes, the Geth did almost wipe out the Quarians but look at how far ME3 went to write this off solely as self defense and a struggle for freedom. From a logical standpoint these don't disprove the Catalyst but again this is a story. In stories the writers choose what and what not to put into a story. And I can't help thinking, "Was the whole point of putting in EDI's character and romance arc and peace on Rannoch a build up to a place where peace was only possible through Synthesis?"

[Farangbaa]

The problem is that Mass Effect is a story. The games, especially ME3, constantly build up the humanity of the synthetic characters and stripping them of their alienness, even going so far as to start ignoring that whole genocide thing that happened with the Geth and the Quarians. By the time we're marching into the final battle against the Reapers the AI characters are the nicest and most reasonable people in the galaxy. All of this was building up to something. What I interpreted it as is that AI weren't some incomprehensible other but humans with metal skin. That conflict wasn't a result of some inseparable divide between organics and synthetics, but rather biases that exist today. In this view the conflicts weren't so much a reflection of a technical singularity but rather tensions that we see right now in the news and in our history books

 

With the Catalyst revelation this is completely changed. The nature of the conflict goes back to where it was in ME1. The Catalysts goal and the introduction of Synthesis also undid much of the development that happened with the AI characters. I think it's telling that Shepard can neither argue with the Catalyst, bring up Rannoch, or reflect on how the events of the story fit into the Catalysts view. While the Catalyst talks about this inevitable conflict it is very possible that right outside the Geth are fighting with the Quarians and there is a pilot who loves a robot. Although, yes, the Geth did almost wipe out the Quarians but look at how far ME3 went to write this off solely as self defense and a struggle for freedom. From a logical standpoint these don't disprove the Catalyst but again this is a story. In stories the writers choose what and what not to put into a story. And I can't help thinking, "Was the whole point of putting in EDI's character and romance arc and peace on Rannoch a build up to a place where peace was only possible through Synthesis?"

 

Yes.