221 réponses à ce sujet

[Tonymac]

Yes, like a Star Wars movie without George Lucas...

 

Well, Lucas got so much criticism for his prequels sucking that he had a tantrum and sold Star Wars.   Perhaps now since Disney is running the show we can actually get some good movies.

 

Lucas got lucky with Star Wars - a lot of really talented people came together and created something wonderful.  Lucas got to take most of the credit for it - as he was the one taking the biggest risk. In the end, Lucas was better at making companies than he was movies.  He made Pixar, THX , Lucasarts, Lucasfilms and a few other spinoffs - something no man should be ashamed of.  He made an empire.  As Lucas put it - he became the thing he had always been fighting - the industry giant.

 

I see some parallels with Lucas and Hudson.  They are creative and inventive individuals with a lot of charisma.  They also have pretty big egos.  At some point they think that its all about them, and not the overall talent of the team.  They exert too much control, believing that they are the center of creativity - and that's how you get characters like Jar Jar and our StarBratKid thingy on the Citadel.

[Riven326]

In general, large corporations act defensively. Never admit a mistake. It's not just EA. It's what large corporations do.

 

Though it seems like times are changing.

I suppose you're right. But it's a policy that needs revision. Gamers would much rather have a company admit fault than hide behind speak and deflection.

[Heimdall]

I suppose you're right. But it's a policy that needs revision. Gamers would much rather have a company admit fault than hide behind speak and deflection.

The question is, is the potential gain in good will worth the potential loss of sales?

[Riven326]

The question is, is the potential gain in good will worth the potential loss of sales?

Yes. Good will goes a long way and helps establish trust. Corporate double speak makes people angry and drives customers away.

[Tonymac]

Yes. Good will goes a long way and helps establish trust. Corporate double speak makes people angry and drives customers away.

 

True.  It also drives customers away when a company gives them the helicopter trick, flips them the bird with the other hand, and screams Artistic Integrity.

[dreamgazer]

True.  It also drives customers away when a company gives them the helicopter trick, flips them the bird with the other hand, and screams Artistic Integrity.

 
Yeah, I don't consider spending extra money on a free Extended Cut DLC a representation of that.

 

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

The team and I have been thinking hard about how to best address the comments on ME3’s endings from players, while still maintaining the artistic integrity of the game.

We’re working hard to maintain the right balance between the artistic integrity of the original story while addressing the fan feedback we’ve received.

[Tonymac]

 

 
Yeah, I don't consider spending extra money on a free Extended Cut DLC a representation of that.

 

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

 

 

First off, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, bro.  You've brought up many good points that I appreciate.  (Not all of them, but a good number)

 

They made the EC DLC.  Some people liked it others did not.  I saw it as a good gesture - but it was not one that fixed the underlying problem of bad writing.  Bad writing not only in the ending(s), but the whole story in a general sense.  There are many gems in ME3 - some of it has really amazing writing - but overall I hated the doom and gloom of it.  I paid for a SciFi game, and I got a tearjerker genre game.   Some people happen to like sad, dark, doom and gloom stuffs - they call it entertainment, but I do not.  When we bring up these points. they play the AI card.  

 

They can keep their artistic integrity, and I will keep my cash.  

[dreamgazer]

First off, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, bro.  You've brought up many good points that I appreciate.  (Not all of them, but a good number)

Sure thing!
 

They made the EC DLC.  Some people liked it others did not.  I saw it as a good gesture - but it was not one that fixed the underlying problem of bad writing.  Bad writing not only in the ending(s), but the whole story in a general sense.

Well, they can't really go back and fix the "bad writing" across the game, let alone the entire trilogy. There are issues throughout, especially in ME2's railroading and the baggage it dumped on ME3.

There are many gems in ME3 - some of it has really amazing writing - but overall I hated the doom and gloom of it.  I paid for a SciFi game, and I got a tearjerker genre game.   Some people happen to like sad, dark, doom and gloom stuffs - they call it entertainment, but I do not.  When we bring up these points. they play the AI card.

I think that's being unfairly biased against ME3, given the numerous instances of "dark, doom and gloom stuffs" across the entire trilogy: the Prothean extinction and perish of the research colony, Virmire's genophage content and forced killing of Kaidan or Ashley, and sacrificing thousands upon thousands of individuals in the Battle of the Citadel; Shepard's death and techno-resurrection, the two-year jump that forced the galaxy into an "Ah yes, Reapers" mindset, liquefied human colonies, the Collectors' origin, and a distinct lack of options in what to do with the Collector base (which housed who knows how many leftover humans and genetic material).

They can keep their artistic integrity, and I will keep my cash.

That might not be a bad idea, since BioWare have been dishing out the restraints of "artistic integrity" for a long, long time now.

[Revan Reborn]

First off, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, bro.  You've brought up many good points that I appreciate.  (Not all of them, but a good number)

 

They made the EC DLC.  Some people liked it others did not.  I saw it as a good gesture - but it was not one that fixed the underlying problem of bad writing.  Bad writing not only in the ending(s), but the whole story in a general sense.  There are many gems in ME3 - some of it has really amazing writing - but overall I hated the doom and gloom of it.  I paid for a SciFi game, and I got a tearjerker genre game.   Some people happen to like sad, dark, doom and gloom stuffs - they call it entertainment, but I do not.  When we bring up these points. they play the AI card.  

 

They can keep their artistic integrity, and I will keep my cash.  

As dreamgazer stated, the Mass Effect franchise has always been "doom and gloom." What do you think the entire Reaper threat and the implications of Indoctrination were all about? Honestly, I felt ME2 was actually darker than ME3, which was more about building a global coalition to try and combat an unstoppable force. ME2, Shepard and half the crew of the Normandy are killed, and that's literally just the first five minutes...

 

But really, how did you expect ME3 to end? Did you believe it would be flowers and butterflies? Based on the first two games alone, you should have realized it would have been a slaughter. Shepard didn't know how to stop the reapers. He was only able to delay their efforts. When the true invasion came, there were going to be casualties. This was a war unlike anything the galaxy had ever faced. A happy ending was not likely and would have merely cheapened the experience.

[Ashevajak]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE????????

[Heimdall]

Yes. Good will goes a long way and helps establish trust. Corporate double speak makes people angry and drives customers away.

That's easy for us to say, not so easy for them to feel confident in those results. Advertising that a game is badly flawed also drives away customers.

[dreamgazer]

As dreamgazer stated, the Mass Effect franchise has always been "doom and gloom." What do you think the entire Reaper threat and the implications of Indoctrination were all about? Honestly, I felt ME2 was actually darker than ME3, which was more about building a global coalition to try and combat an unstoppable force. ME2, Shepard and half the crew of the Normandy are killed, and that's literally just the first five minutes...

ME2 took the glimmer of hopeful resistance against the "darken the skies" mecha-Cthulhu at the end of ME1 and literally spaced it.

Two years later? "We have dismissed that claim", ending with:

[Riven326]

That's easy for us to say, not so easy for them to feel confident in those results. Advertising that a game is badly flawed also drives away customers.

Between the internet and word of mouth, the information gets out there one way or another. A developer/publisher being honest about a game's problems generates good will instead of contempt.

[Heimdall]

Between the internet and word of mouth, the information gets out there one way or another. A developer/publisher being honest about a game's problems generates good will instead of contempt.

I know, I'm just saying that its a gamble.  When word of mouth says things about the game many people will reserve judgement until they see it themselves.  When the devs officially declare it flawed, that's just not the same.

[lastpawn]

But really, how did you expect ME3 to end? Did you believe it would be flowers and butterflies? Based on the first two games alone, you should have realized it would have been a slaughter. Shepard didn't know how to stop the reapers. He was only able to delay their efforts. When the true invasion came, there were going to be casualties. This was a war unlike anything the galaxy had ever faced. A happy ending was not likely and would have merely cheapened the experience.

 

I see this sentiment expressed somewhat often, and the reasoning just doesn't work for me.

 

In ME1 you go against all odds and win, losing one crew member. In ME2 you go against all odds and lose NOBODY unless you screwed up. Based on that, why does it not make sense that Shepard should survive in ME3 (I can only assume this is what you mean by "a happy ending")?

 

In any case, Shepard survives in one of the endings. I don't see how that cheapens the game any more than, say, a magic cyber infusion ending.

 

But to answer your question, how did I expect ME3 to end? In a way that makes sense.

[lastpawn]

That's easy for us to say, not so easy for them to feel confident in those results. Advertising that a game is badly flawed also drives away customers.

 

I think this is the main issue. Bioware and EA are trying to strike the right balance between not admitting mistakes to the general audience even as they acknowledge things "under the table" for the sake of their core audience.

 

For example, I was struck by how open some Dragon Age Inquisition developers are with the problems in Dragon Age 2.

[Revan Reborn]

I see this sentiment expressed somewhat often, and the reasoning just doesn't work for me.

 

In ME1 you go against all odds and win, losing one crew member. In ME2 you go against all odds and lose NOBODY unless you screwed up. Based on that, why does it not make sense that Shepard should survive in ME3 (I can only assume this is what you mean by "a happy ending")?

 

In any case, Shepard survives in one of the endings. I don't see how that cheapens the game any more than, say, a magic cyber infusion ending.

 

But to answer your question, how did I expect ME3 to end? In a way that makes sense.

In ME1, you go against one reaper and a rogue spectre who is under the influence of indoctrination. The moral dilemma on Virmire was BioWare's ways of testing the waters with tragedy, but they didn't want to go too far as it was a brand new franchise. In Mass Effect 2, honestly the ability to save everybody on a "suicide mission" was a mistake on BioWare's part. It's wasn't remotely realistic, and while I thoroughly enjoyed ME2, it really took away the gravity and intensity of the final mission. It was a stark difference from the first five minutes of the game, where the most advanced ship in the Alliance Navy is destroyed and the galaxy's only hope of survival is killed. There should have been more casualties in ME2. I believe BioWare got cold feet and gave the players too much control over the experience for fear of backlash.

 

ME3, in that sense, was much more logical. Regardless of how prepared you were or what hurdles you jumped through, sacrifices were going to be made. It was going to take Shepard to his limits, and even he didn't know if he was going to make it through to the other side. No, Shepard living or dying is irrelevant to the events of ME3. What I meant by "a happy ending" would be all the companions, main characters, and supporting casts getting through the experience without one scratch.  That would have been ridiculous. I personally picked Destroy, which was the only choice Shepard lives. Again, it really doesn't matter, as all synthetics had been destroyed, and Earth was turned into a giant junkyard due to the Reaper invasion. As Shepard said in the first five minutes of ME3: "This isn't about winning. This is about survival." That was the point of ME3, and many seemed to have missed that.

 

Please elaborate on how ME3's ending did not make sense? Are you referring to your confusion about the catalyst? What the various choices meant for the future? You'll have to provide an explanation. Contrary to popular belief, BioWare was rather transparent what ME3 was about and how it was going to end. There were going to be losses. That was inevitable.

[lastpawn]

Please elaborate on how ME3's ending did not make sense? Are you referring to your confusion about the catalyst? What the various choices meant for the future? You'll have to provide an explanation. Contrary to popular belief, BioWare was rather transparent what ME3 was about and how it was going to end. There were going to be losses. That was inevitable.

 

It would be a long writeup, and I was never one for extended arguments on the Internet. If you're interested in my opinion, the best I can do is suggest you look up the youtube personality MrBtongue and his videos on Mass Effect 3 ending. The videos are Mass Effect 3 Ending: Tasteful, Understated Nerdrage and TUN: Extended Complaining. I agree with almost all the claims he makes and, being a fellow academic, I'm happy letting him talk on my behalf.

 

Of course, that's like an hour of your life and frankly I'm sure you have better things to do. I suggest we just agree that we have different opinions on this matter. It's been 2 years. Chances are... we're not changing our opinions at this point.

 

However, it the videos I suggest are certainly an elaboration "on how ME3's ending did not make sense," whether you agree with it or not. It has nothing to do with a "happy ending" or no.

[nallepuh86]

So people are still butt hurt, because mass effect 3 didnt have generic hollywood ending... The ending in 3 was exellent. Not only it gives us emotions it also created and left many questions left, just the way it should be. I hate overexplaining in games or anything in general.

 

 

Its nice to see mac walters in next mass effect.

[Revan Reborn]

So people are still butt hurt, because mass effect 3 didnt have generic hollywood ending... The ending in 3 was exellent. Not only it gives us emotions it also created and left many questions left, just the way it should be. I hate overexplaining in games or anything in general.

 

 

Its nice to see mac walters in next mass effect.

From what I have gathered, the major complaints are the ending wasn't predictable and it wasn't a typical "good guy takes down evil boss and saves the day" scenario. Many also still seem to complain that having 100% galactic readiness and completing everything does not impact the ending at all, which actually isn't true. Either way, I agree that the use of a moral dilemma and a philosophical question of what the future should be was extremely compelling and I enjoyed it. I certainly appreciated it more than something really predictable that would have just felt underwhelming as an ending.

[Heimdall]

From what I have gathered, the major complaints are the ending wasn't predictable and it wasn't a typical "good guy takes down evil boss and saves the day" scenario. Many also still seem to complain that having 100% galactic readiness and completing everything does not impact the ending at all, which actually isn't true. Either way, I agree that the use of a moral dilemma and a philosophical question of what the future should be was extremely compelling and I enjoyed it. I certainly appreciated it more than something really predictable that would have just felt underwhelming as an ending.

Really? I recall plenty complaints regarding the thematic disconnect and the space magic Deus ex machina with minimal to nonexistent foreshadowing amongst other things. The endings had more wrong with them than not being happy or predictable.

[Revan Reborn]

Really? I recall plenty complaints regarding the thematic disconnect and the space magic Deus ex machina with minimal to nonexistent foreshadowing amongst other things. The endings had more wrong with them than not being happy or predictable.

There wasn't a disconnect. The audience literally just did not have all the facts and thus many were confused. BioWare probably would have been better off had Leviathan come incorporated with ME3 at launch rather than afterwards. When you actually understand the entirety of the situation and the Catalyst's purpose, the game is hardly a "thematic disconnect" or lacking "foreshadowing." Shepard's visions from the very beginning of the game are a major indicator for the final encounter with the Catalyst.

 

This is similar to a debate about 2001: A Space Odyssey or Inception. The movies are either adored or they are loathed. This is merely because they focus on many philosophical undertones and require the audience to think, unlike most Hollywood films which are just popcorn action flicks. If people feel they are confused and do not understand, they immediately become defensive and do not enjoy the experience as much. To truly appreciate ME3, I'd recommend going through the main story multiple times. You'd be surprised what aspects you see on a subsequent playthrough that you never realized before.

[Iakus]

There wasn't a disconnect. The audience literally just did not have all the facts and thus many were confused. BioWare probably would have been better off had Leviathan come incorporated with ME3 at launch rather than afterwards. When you actually understand the entirety of the situation and the Catalyst's purpose, the game is hardly a "thematic disconnect" or lacking "foreshadowing." Shepard's visions from the very beginning of the game are a major indicator for the final encounter with the Catalyst.

 

This is similar to a debate about 2001: A Space Odyssey or Inception. The movies are either adored or they are loathed. This is merely because they focus on many philosophical undertones and require the audience to think, unlike most Hollywood films which are just popcorn action flicks. If people feel they are confused and do not understand, they immediately become defensive and do not enjoy the experience as much. To truly appreciate ME3, I'd recommend going through the main story multiple times. You'd be surprised what aspects you see on a subsequent playthrough that you never realized before.

Ah yes "The players were just confused" 

 

I was never confused.  I knew exactly what they were going for, and it sucked.  It was thematically dissonant not just with certain ME3 playstyles, but with certain trilogy runs.  Basically, if you wern't playing a no-import Shepard, you were doing it wrong.

[RoboticWater]

There wasn't a disconnect. The audience literally just did not have all the facts and thus many were confused. BioWare probably would have been better off had Leviathan come incorporated with ME3 at launch rather than afterwards. When you actually understand the entirety of the situation and the Catalyst's purpose, the game is hardly a "thematic disconnect" or lacking "foreshadowing." Shepard's visions from the very beginning of the game are a major indicator for the final encounter with the Catalyst.

 

This is similar to a debate about 2001: A Space Odyssey or Inception. The movies are either adored or they are loathed. This is merely because they focus on many philosophical undertones and require the audience to think, unlike most Hollywood films which are just popcorn action flicks. If people feel they are confused and do not understand, they immediately become defensive and do not enjoy the experience as much. To truly appreciate ME3, I'd recommend going through the main story multiple times. You'd be surprised what aspects you see on a subsequent playthrough that you never realized before.

First of all, I think it's unreasonable to judge the story of a game using post-release DLC. If the content in that DLC was necessary to understand the story of the main game, it shouldn't have been sold as a supplement. 

 

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to say that the central theme of Mass Effect is strength in unity of diversity. You beat ME1 by building a diverse team and bringing together the human and Council fleets, and you beat ME2 by uniting the some of the most talented individuals from each race. So why is it that ME3 doesn't really reflect that? Sure getting your EMS up required cooperation, but the ending wasn't about working together, it was something about the conflict between synthetics and organics. I'm not sure how anyone could think that's what Mass Effect was ultimately about. They'd have to ignore the two previous games and the entire Geth arc. It simply didn't fit.

 

ME3 didn't leave me thinking "was I right?" it left me thinking "what just happened?" If I was asked to sacrifice one race to defeat the reapers (I know that's a lame idea, but bear with me) I would finish the game debating the ethics of my choice. The actual ending had me caught up simply in the mechanics. The ending just dumped a whole bunch of stuff on you that was hardly even mentioned before. Who is this Catalyst? How does synthesis work? Why would that be very helpful? And most unfortunately, why did the writers think this was very helpful? We were only told the Crucible used a ton of energy to do something. Quite honestly, turning everyone into sort of a robot wasn't what I had in mind.

 

But ultimately, Mass Effect isn't the kind of series that called for an Inception style ending. That isn't to say ME3's ending had to be incredibly simple, but the massive twist style ending simply doesn't fit Mass Effect's genre.

 

Also, there's no way the visions foreshadowed the Catalyst. Shepard's dreams are, at most, a poor attempt at symbolizing his or her inner turmoil. Other than appearing to be visually similar to the kid, the Catalyst has no evident connection to the visions.