590 réponses à ce sujet

[God]

Why did you buy the game then?

 

I bought the game based on the story and merits of the previous two games and wanting to see the continuation and conclusion of the story, and how the galaxy reflected my Shepard's actions and decisions.

 

It's kind of what you do when you have a sequel.

[CrutchCricket]

Well, their marketing department sure did. Lots of preorder, Day One, and Week One sales before the truth of the game came out.

 

Now it introduced us to another Latin phrase:  "caveat emptor"

 

That means "buyer beware" 

There was a joke about someone naming a store Caveat Emptor.

 

I don't remember it.

[CrutchCricket]

Based on what you told me earlier, you should have waited a month after release and saved your money.

What's that thing about hindsight and 20s?

[God]

Based on what you told me earlier, you should have waited a month after release and saved your money.

 

Why? I wanted to see the conclusion to my story that I had made for Shepard. I wasn't going to just drop that at the time of release for abstract, intellectual business practices at the time. On that note, how am I supposed to judge a game unless I've bought it? I wasn't able to just rent it or try it free.

 

What's your argument? I don't think you have a valid one (let alone a deductively correct one).

[God]

From what you told me, you knew the game had been overhyped and had lots of returns, and bad reviews (your opinion, not mine), but bought it anyways.

 

From what you heard from me (jack **** apparently), I bought the game as a day one release. Hell I got it as a Midnight release. I was literally one of the first Americans to play the bloody game. 

 

There was no perspective on the hype. There was no word on the returns. There were hardly any reviews, sans the ones that had been pre-approved by BW.

 

It seems like you're trying to pull a Colin Moriarty here. Telling me not to buy the game if I don't like it. But I can't decide whether I like it or not unless I... buy the game. And make my own, informed opinion about the series.

 

And, to put a tu quoque spin on your words (your opinion, not mine)

 

 

Mass Effect 3 made a hefty profit. Bioware must have done something right. 

 

BioWare must have done something wrong if there was such an outcry at the game from the fanbase, including reviews, professional reevaluations, and returns, including an acknowledgement that there was a 'disconnect' between BW's view and that of the public that bought the game. 

 

People bought ME3 based on the merits of ME1 and ME2. They bought the game because they heard the series was good up to that point. They didn't buy the game because ME3 was the best game ever, or because the public had said as such. Even the mayflies that buy it up fast on day one aren't going to declare it as great until they've actually had time to sink their teeth in it.

 

And the truth is that the public came to a different conclusion from BW and the gaming journalism industry. I'm sure you're aware of the accusations of croneyism and nepotism faced by IGN for example over their review of the game and the inclusion of one of their popular personalities in the game voicing a character (Diana Allers) that was more heavily promoted than any Mass Effect 2 character in the game (and indeed more promoted than any other human in the game that wasn't Commander Shepard himself), and who is near universally regarded as one of the worst characters in the franchise. 

[Iakus]

Why did you buy the game then?

Because I discounted the early rumors (from the copies shot into space during the hype "promotion") as wild exaggerations.  No way Bioware would do something that stupid, I thought.  There'd be riots, I thought.

 

Turns out those rumors were entirely true, and the audience did respond as I would have expected.  Now I'm much more cautious of anything Bioware promises.  (Hell, I didn't touch DAI until it was verified that MP didn't touch SP at all, and that the ending wasn't a RGB rehash) And I'm approaching MENext with a "Why should I trust you?" perspective.  

[wolfhowwl]

I don't even know what ME3 sales are. I don't think solid numbers were ever released.

 

Not really a good sign though when ME3 was bundled with the trilogy within the same year (original release Mar 2012. Trilogy came out in September) and the whole thing went for like $30 (now much cheaper. I just got it for $6). 

 

Not saying this to be a hater. Just saying. [I shouldn't have to put this disclaimer in, but I'm covering my ass]

 

EA rarely releases numbers for anything anymore.

 

Mass Effect 3 did 1.3 million physical units in the US in March 2012 according to the NPD.

[God]

That's what user reviews are for. See Metacritic, GameSpot, Amazon, etc.

 

Here's the thing. You don't *need* to buy something the first day it is released. Some people I know waited over a year to play ME3.

 

But that goes back to my point of 'why wait now for my satisfaction and gratification from this game that has crafted (up to that point) a superb and engaging dynamic space opera tale that allows me to craft an interesting avatar into this futuristic world where I travel across the galaxy and make choices and decisions that affect its future,' just so I could hold to some arbitrary and intellectual idea of financial responsibility. You're trying to say that I should willingly hold off on assuaging my interest and sentimental investment in the series by detaching myself to a point where I drop said investments to make a financial decision. You're pulling a hindsight fallacy here. And as you're using it as the basis of your entire argument, your argument is fallacious (in a non-fallacy fallacy incurring sense). Thus, your point is invalid. I told you before, work on your logic. 

[God]

EA rarely releases numbers for anything anymore.

 

Mass Effect 3 did 1.3 million physical units in the US in March 2012.

 

Well... They do, and they don't. It depends on the department and oftentimes the series in question. 

[God]

The demo they had initially was a chance to try out a game before putting down $60 for the real thing. Sometimes when I want to try out a game, I see if there's a demo first. No demo? I won't buy it.

 

So you're saying that a demo that contains maybe 20 minutes (maximum) of playing time for an intro mission, one early-mid level story mission, and the multiplayer is an acceptable means of making a judgement for a game that runs at least 25-30 hours for most people (rather than as a game play exhibition.)

 

Demos aren't the whole story. They aren't the whole picture. As Alien: Colonial Marines showed, they're sometimes specifically to generate interest while leaving little to nothing of the actual demo in the game, which may or may not be inferior/incomplete/buggy product. In that instance, the developers and publishers are guilty of, and can be prosecuted in some instances of fraud. 

 

I'm sure you're aware of why Alien: Colonial Marines completely destroys your point here. My point is that demos don't mean jack for the game. If a demo was supposed to be an accurate reflection of the games narrative (rather than a game play tryout), then it wouldn't be a demo. It would be... the game! 

[wolfhowwl]

Why did you buy the game then?

 

So he could spend years complaining about the severe emotional trauma he suffered from a video game ending.

[BioWareMod03]

Hello everyone. Let's keep the discussion in here civil so the thread can remain open. Thank you.

[AlanC9]

From what you heard from me (jack **** apparently), I bought the game as a day one release. Hell I got it as a Midnight release. I was literally one of the first Americans to play the bloody game. 
 
There was no perspective on the hype. There was no word on the returns. There were hardly any reviews, sans the ones that had been pre-approved by BW.

In retrospect, do you think that buying then was a mistake? Or would you have bought ME3 anyway even if you'd held off to see what others were saying about it?

[wright1978]

Because I discounted the early rumors (from the copies shot into space during the hype "promotion") as wild exaggerations.  No way Bioware would do something that stupid, I thought.  There'd be riots, I thought.

 

Turns out those rumors were entirely true, and the audience did respond as I would have expected.  Now I'm much more cautious of anything Bioware promises.  (Hell, I didn't touch DAI until it was verified that MP didn't touch SP at all, and that the ending wasn't a RGB rehash) And I'm approaching MENext with a "Why should I trust you?" perspective.  

 

Yeah i avoided some of the spoilers and while troubled by a lot of what i did hear, i naively thought that even if there were flaws they wouldn't produce something that would end as an utter trainwreck.

 

ME3 has made me more cautious taking note when my gut starts runbling based on the information floating about pre-launch. So yeah definitely less auto-buy mode when it comes to Bioware games from me.

[angol fear]

#3 synthesis :  "This is, again, not implicit since it does not follow implicit writing structure. Nor is it obviously explicit."

 

just like I've said it's implicit or explicit  you have to choose. There's nothing between implicit and explicit. But I'm really curious : what is your implicit writing? When I'm talking about implicit writing, it's in the speeches and in the images.

 

"noting in the nature of the ME universe can do synthesis the way starkid describes and nothing (to point 3) can survive once the relays blow up."

 

Well you're not talking about implicit (the way to make sense indirectly with words or images), you're trying to show that the ending doesn't fit to what you know. 

 

#4 Structure 

"you are a writer"

 

Yes but I should tell you that I actually do work in experimental/artistic video (I've been working for more than 10 years in art) and as a poet. So I'm not working for money or to get people to like my work. I'm doing this because I love it. I have money from my main job (literature teacher).

 

"Narrative structure is about two things: the content of a story and the form used to
tell the story"

 

I totally agree with that.

 

"You seem to have broken the structure of ME3 into Three parts:"

 

Actually I've only taken these three part because they were important to understand the catalyst's logic. But no, you should add the beginning and the ending and you have five parts.

Anyway for tuchanka, it's indirectly related to chaos. If you take a look at the problem, you see organics that are fighting organics. They use organics making unions to control other organics. They put bombs to destroy other organics. There's no organic race that could be said to be "good". They use technology to enslave. (I exagerrate but that's the idea. That's the genophage : use science and technology to control another race). If you take a look at the Asari, why are they at the citadel? Because they actually have some prothean technology. The Thessia mission is here to show that. Power with technology.

And for "chaos" :

 

Sovereign :  We impose order on the chaos of organic life.

Reaper on Rannoch :You represent chaos, we represent order. Every organic civilization must be harvested in order to bring order to the chaos. It is inevitable. Without our intervention, organics are doomed. We are your salvation.

 

Sure the catalyst seems to say something that goes against what has been written : "chaos. The created will always rebel aginst their creators". But the game is here to explain us how it works. So basically organics fight themselves, then create technology, someday they create some synthetics (the path when you make technology evolve) then they fear the synthetics (they evolve faster),want to destroy them. Synthetics rebel against their creators. the problem is always coming from organics. And sure synthetics will always rebel if they don't want to be destroyed. you'll probably say that That's my interpretation but yes and that's how implicit works. You have to understand from the structure of the game what is the relation between that and the ending.

The problem is that because it's implicit, you can say I'm wrong and I won't try to argue with you because there's no explicit relation ( the catalyst doesn't say a word about the genophage, rannoch etc...). He just tell you the conclusion but never explain what makes him think that. the answer is implicitly in the structure.

 

I have to stop here!

[CrutchCricket]

So he could spend years complaining about the severe emotional trauma he suffered from a video game ending.

Hyperbole aside, this is is the series that practically sells itself on the emotional commitment to its characters more so than just about any other.

 

Is this really a surprise?

 

If video games are art, does art not evoke emotion?

 

Personally I'd be happy for those that genuinely mean the ending was among the most disappointing things they've ever experienced. They've been damn lucky, no?

[angol fear]

#4 structure :

So quickly about religion : In Mass Effect 1 the first mission is on EDEN prime, we've got the LAZARUS project in Mass Effect 2, some geth see the reapers as gods,LEGION got his name from the bible, Thessia mission shows that the Asari gods are only protheans. These are some examples that shows that the religion theme is here from the beginning. In Mass Effect 1 there are planets description that are really interesting because the religion theme is quite explained. I don't have enough time to find them again and quote them but Thessia shows clearly how the religion theme is handled : religion is misinterpretation. When you reach the catalyst in the original ending, you've got the feeling that you face a higher being, some kind of god. The sound you hear, the light, etc... when you see him you don't think first that it's an A.I., you actually think that it's a higher being. The game was made this way to trap the player in its own representations. The ending isn't religious but plays with this aspect and the religion theme. The opinion about religion is implicit in the trilogy and people who didn't see it can't understand why the ending got this aspect, why it was done this way. In the extended cut, the presentation of the character (quite mystical) and the fact that he is an A.I. shows clearly the problem of religion (misinterpretation). In the original game you had to understand that he is an A.I., you had to go against your own first impression to find the truth.

[Ithurael]

@ Anglo.

 

Love the responses so far. Can you put a marker when you are finished? Like a #/END/#

 

That way I know when to reply