Or is it just that the EC doesn't deviate from the original intent? That seems more likely; most of what the EC does is to kill off bad interpretations. Or rather, non-intended interpretations.
Really? I think the EC completely changed what the endings were all about. If those "bad interpretations" were not intended, than I'd say the writers did an even worse job than what they were criticized for in the original backlash.
I wasn't playing ME when ME3 was released, but I was hanging around the Dragon Age forums, so hearing about the ending was unavoidable. The EC really was released in because of the fans. It was not a "Director's Cut." It was released because fans absolutely hated the ending. And I understood that even though I hadn't played a single minute of Mass Effect. Any argument that it's anything but is out of sheer stubbornness.
And yet I still ask for some form of tangible proof to back that up.
Speaking of networks last page, Geth are "Networked AI," right? But is it a ring, star, bus or a completely different topology altogether?
Besides that nobody knows, probably not even the writers...
I'd guess that they don't use a fixed virtual topology, or rather: No topology at all.
'Individual' geth VI programs are transferable between machines. (The concept is called 'mobile agents' irl) So any sort of dataflow between two fixed nodes is hindered by the fact that geth programs can and do migrate to other machines.
The original Quarian version also seemed to (as I understood it) favour on a opportunistic, maybe epidemic style of communication. (I'm probably a bit biased here.) But how that works exactly -especially between programs on the same hardware- is really pure speculation.
And yet I still ask for some form of tangible proof to back that up.
Mass Effect 3 was released on March 6, 2012. This apology was released on March 21. Relevant quote: "Building on their research, Exec Producer Casey Hudson and the team are hard at work on a number of game content initiatives that will help answer the questions, providing more clarity for those seeking further closure to their journey."
The Extended Cut was released on June 26. If you continue to believe that the apology and the DLC are not directly correlated, then all I can assume is that you continue to be willfully deluded. And that's a problem you'll have to sort out for yourself.
Interesting speculation though. How it works, what it results in, and the very fundamental nature of the intelligence that results is ripe for exploration. That's one reason I found Legion's ME2 loyalty mission so interesting, and the decision so difficult. It's exploring a totally alien intelligence (more alien than the aliens), yet a very plausible-sounding one. That sort of thing is what science fiction is great for.But how that works exactly -especially between programs on the same hardware- is really pure speculation.
Speaking of networks last page, Geth are "Networked AI," right? But is it a ring, star, bus or a completely different topology altogether?
Well, not to get this too off topic but the best way to kind of see this is to start with a cognitive or adaptive system. This is, at least, for the software side of the house. The hardware I imagine would work in similar fashion to what we have now, Physical Layer, Virtual Layer. Then you have the software layer (middleware, DBs, small apps, big apps, etc) which would be the most complex. In all honesty I am not entirely sure how it could look (I made some Visio's back in the day for our automated monitoring system but they were really high level).
If you really are interested, I would greatly recommend A.I. - A Modern Approach (3rd Edition)
http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0136042597
That is the book I read, and re-read even now, for planning next steps into building cognitive systems.
Why did I even post that comment? My head hurts now.
It is merely your brain expanding!
"Awaken my child and embrace the glory that is your birthright!"
Mass Effect 3 was released on March 6, 2012. This apology was released on March 21. Relevant quote: "Building on their research, Exec Producer Casey Hudson and the team are hard at work on a number of game content initiatives that will help answer the questions, providing more clarity for those seeking further closure to their journey."
The Extended Cut was released on June 26. If you continue to believe that the apology and the DLC are not directly correlated, then all I can assume is that you continue to be willfully deluded. And that's a problem you'll have to sort out for yourself.
Mass Effect 3 was released on March 6, 2012. This apology was released on March 21. Relevant quote: "Building on their research, Exec Producer Casey Hudson and the team are hard at work on a number of game content initiatives that will help answer the questions, providing more clarity for those seeking further closure to their journey."
The Extended Cut was released on June 26. If you continue to believe that the apology and the DLC are not directly correlated, then all I can assume is that you continue to be willfully deluded. And that's a problem you'll have to sort out for yourself.
And still not the tangible proof. Correlation is not causation. Because this is the sort of thing that happens in retail all the time.
Case in point at the pet supermarket I used to work at. Customer came in complaining we don't have X brand of dog food they want. Pet supermarket already had plans to add that to the store inventory long before. But since they were a customer I was required as all jobs that sell any sort of product requires me to kiss the customer's ass. So I would state they are correct we should carry it because it is such a good brand and that pet supermarket is working on adding that food to our store some time in the future.
Which if you will note is a different thing but follows the exact same line as that apology you are mentioning. When I asked for tangible proof I wanted some blog, interview or something were someone working on the game directly states they were not rushed to finish the game, that the original ending was perfectly ok and that they only created the EC because people were complaining.
*snip*
I happen to believe you are illiterate and that all the previous posts under your handle is the output of the proverbial monkey randomly typing on a keyboard. Prove me otherwise.
I happen to believe you are illiterate and that all the previous posts under your handle is the output of the proverbial monkey randomly typing on a keyboard.
I wouldn't give him that much credit, as that would make the mere existence of the posts miraculous.
He's just a rabid Bioware fanboy that refuses to acknowledge that Bioware screwed up, even though the link Monica21 posted is pretty much indisputable, and is putting himself through an impressive array of mental gymnastics to try and defend them. Frankly, I'm amazed people are even still bothering to argue with him, either in this thread or the one about the destroy ending. It'd be more constructive to argue with a brick wall.
Mass Effect 3 was released on March 6, 2012. This apology was released on March 21. Relevant quote: "Building on their research, Exec Producer Casey Hudson and the team are hard at work on a number of game content initiatives that will help answer the questions, providing more clarity for those seeking further closure to their journey."
The Extended Cut was released on June 26. If you continue to believe that the apology and the DLC are not directly correlated, then all I can assume is that you continue to be willfully deluded. And that's a problem you'll have to sort out for yourself.
I'd hesitate to call it an "apology" save in a backhanded manner, like "We're sorry you're too dumb to understand our Art"
I was here when they said they were listening to feedback (not that they engaged much with the audience outside of posting a "We are listening" thread and then abandoning it), and I can say that not a whole lot was actually used (people were outright begging for a Shepard reunion scene to add on to/replace the breath scene). And much of what was used was very awkwardly implemented (like the Normandy farewell scene)
And then there was outright trolling the anti-enders by having shooting the Starchild triggering Refuse. Prior to EC, there were youtube videos of people displaying their disgust at the endings by showing Shepard shooting Starbrat over and over again. A truly passive/aggressive response.
And still not the tangible proof. Correlation is not causation. Because this is the sort of thing that happens in retail all the time.
I'm usually on board with the "correlation does not equal causation" argument unless proven otherwise.
Case in point at the pet supermarket I used to work at. Customer came in complaining we don't have X brand of dog food they want. Pet supermarket already had plans to add that to the store inventory long before. But since they were a customer I was required as all jobs that sell any sort of product requires me to kiss the customer's ass. So I would state they are correct we should carry it because it is such a good brand and that pet supermarket is working on adding that food to our store some time in the future.
You know what I said to myself when I posted the link and the dates? I said, "Self, he's going to find some convoluted reasoning why he thinks this won't be true, and he'll do so in too many paragraphs and with a weird analogy." I was right!
Which if you will note is a different thing but follows the exact same line as that apology you are mentioning. When I asked for tangible proof I wanted some blog, interview or something were someone working on the game directly states they were not rushed to finish the game, that the original ending was perfectly ok and that they only created the EC because people were complaining.
The **** do you think you just read? Do you have any idea how business works? No one's going to come out and say, "Ooops, sorry. We'll fix it." Because that's a bad business decision. What you're looking for are internal emails and documents from Bioware with subject lines screaming, "HOW DO WE FIX THIS?!" and sorry, I left those in my other pants. I know Patrick Weekes has said quite a lot. I know that Mac and Casey were the ones who wrote the ending almost entirely by themselves. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I think they did it without any assistance from the rest of the writers.) You'll have to use your brain in this case and come to the correct conclusion.
I'd hesitate to call it an "apology" save in a backhanded manner, like "We're sorry you're too dumb to understand our Art"
Yeah, I know. I just remembered that it had been released and when you google "Bioware apology" that's what you get. 
I wouldn't give him that much credit, as that would make the mere existence of the posts miraculous.
He's just a rabid Bioware fanboy that refuses to acknowledge that Bioware screwed up, even though the link Monica21 posted is pretty much indisputable, and is putting himself through an impressive array of mental gymnastics to try and defend them. Frankly, I'm amazed people are even still bothering to argue with him, either in this thread or the one about the destroy ending. It'd be more constructive to argue with a brick wall.
The apology isn't proof of anything. It is the same action any company that sells anything does when customers complain. They pull that stick firmly wedged up their ass out. Give it a good strong wiff and tell them their **** doesn't stink. Before sliding the stick right back up their respective asses. You must have never worked in any sort of retail or customer service environment have you? Because anyone who has worked in that sort of job position for even a month would see this as pretty much standard stuff.
Tell me how would you react it they did in fact out right call you morons for not understanding anything? Just out of curiosity?
If they did release EC simply to adress fan complaints how is this bad? The common theme seems to be the release of the EC some how validates complaints. Without EC they are terrible and with EC it is only proof they are terrible. WTF kind of logic is that?
I'd hesitate to call it an "apology" save in a backhanded manner, like "We're sorry you're too dumb to understand our Art"
I was here when they said they were listening to feedback (not that they engaged much with the audience outside of posting a "We are listening" thread and then abandoning it), and I can say that not a whole lot was actually used (people were outright begging for a Shepard reunion scene to add on to/replace the breath scene). And much of what was used was very awkwardly implemented (like the Normandy farewell scene)
And then there was outright trolling the anti-enders by having shooting the Starchild triggering Refuse. Prior to EC, there were youtube videos of people displaying their disgust at the endings by showing Shepard shooting Starbrat over and over again. A truly passive/aggressive response.
See this is really the best example of what I'm talking about.
Even if it was a back handed apology they still did it and they still listened to player feed back and created the EC. With their attempts to answer the questions the fans have in a manner they felt fit the story they were trying to tell. And all players seem to do is ****** about it because it didn't happen 100% the way they wanted it. Besides the unbelievable level of childishness, immaturity and sheer ungratefulness. It shows that people aren't really fans of this series. They are over sized man/woman children who demand everything conform directly to their specific desires or they complain about it. If they are a teen or a child then they are just being a stereotype.
The really hilarious thing is that since I seem to side with Bioware 70% of the time I'm clearly an apologist who must be kissing their ass. The concept of someone maybe having a different option then the loud minority that infests the forums. Because seriously guys just about everyone I talk to on the ME 3 MP side about the forms pretty much repeats the statement that they no longer go on it because it is full of ass holes. As well as many continue to enforce that stereotype of how toxic video game communities are. Though at the same time enforcing the fact it is only a small minority who are toxic. Who have agreed with each other and only people who think just like them so much they think they speak for the majority now. And anyone who might voice a different opinion is clearly wrong.
It is hilariously pathetic and one of the main reason I keep coming back because I need my daily laughs.
It is hilariously pathetic and one of the main reason I keep coming back because I need my daily laughs.
I come here to read your analogies to get a good laugh. You've even posted a few that are very disturbing and wonder why you would post stuff like that
If they did release EC simply to adress fan complaints how is this bad? The common theme seems to be the release of the EC some how validates complaints. Without EC they are terrible and with EC it is only proof they are terrible. WTF kind of logic is that?
I'm usually on board with the "correlation does not equal causation" argument unless proven otherwise.
You know what I said to myself when I posted the link and the dates? I said, "Self, he's going to find some convoluted reasoning why he thinks this won't be true, and he'll do so in too many paragraphs and with a weird analogy." I was right!
The **** do you think you just read? Do you have any idea how business works? No one's going to come out and say, "Ooops, sorry. We'll fix it." Because that's a bad business decision. What you're looking for are internal emails and documents from Bioware with subject lines screaming, "HOW DO WE FIX THIS?!" and sorry, I left those in my other pants. I know Patrick Weekes has said quite a lot. I know that Mac and Casey were the ones who wrote the ending almost entirely by themselves. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I think they did it without any assistance from the rest of the writers.) You'll have to use your brain in this case and come to the correct conclusion.
So your telling me a game developer out right telling anyone who complains about the ending are stupid morons and not backing down on that position is a good thing for business? I mean I would tip my hat to them for their willingness to stand their ground on that. But seems like the majority of people complaining doesn't seem to take being told they are wrong very well.
Yes internal statements would be tangible proof other wise it is just an assumption. Assumptions is perfectly find when talking about events that take place within the game universe. Not so ok when talking about real world happenings. EA has a well established habit of rushing game and releasing them half finished. ME 3 during it's release was kind of considered a big deal and no way in hell EA would postpone it's release if it needed to be properly finished. I've watched all the original vanilla endings. Half of the conclusions people come to particularly with the best destroy options I don't see how they connect some of those dots. Like the fact the Normandy landed without leaving a massive trail of destruction and an impact crater around it means they would have had to land it while still maintaining control of it. Which would mean the destroy wave fucked up the Normandy but didn't wipe out all electronics. Because Joker flies the ship though an electronic screen.
EC ending doesn't retcon like so many want to complain about but explains the endings better. Going into more details to fully explain what happened. Now if you view needing to do this as a problem then it is a problem split 50/50 between writers and gamers. Writers didn't explain it well enough and gamer's didn't connect the dots that were suppose to be connected. This isn't a problem that one side or the other gets all the blame for. And yes if players can complain about the writers not doing a good job writing they are just as allowed to complain about the players not understanding what they created. Despite what some might claim this is a two way street.
But so far as I see it we have 2 assumptions. Your and mine we both assume our own is correct. There isn't any proof for anything. Both of our statements are based on correlation equaling causation. That EA are greedy a holes who care more about money thing games rushing a heavily anticipated game out the door before it might be ready. And yours that Bioware apparently had all the time in the world to craft the ending and made it exactly how they wanted to. Neither one seem to have any proof.
So your telling me a game developer out right telling anyone who complains about the ending are stupid morons and not backing down on that position is a good thing for business?
Yes internal statements would be tangible proof other wise it is just an assumption. Assumptions is perfectly find when talking about events that take place within the game universe. Not so ok when talking about real world happenings.
EA has a well established habit of rushing game and releasing them half finished. ME 3 during it's release was kind of considered a big deal and no way in hell EA would postpone it's release if it needed to be properly finished. I've watched all the original vanilla endings. Half of the conclusions people come to particularly with the best destroy options I don't see how they connect some of those dots. Like the fact the Normandy landed without leaving a massive trail of destruction and an impact crater around it means they would have had to land it while still maintaining control of it. Which would mean the destroy wave fucked up the Normandy but didn't wipe out all electronics. Because Joker flies the ship though an electronic screen.
EC ending doesn't retcon like so many want to complain about but explains the endings better. Going into more details to fully explain what happened. Now if you view needing to do this as a problem then it is a problem split 50/50 between writers and gamers. Writers didn't explain it well enough and gamer's didn't connect the dots that were suppose to be connected. This isn't a problem that one side or the other gets all the blame for. And yes if players can complain about the writers not doing a good job writing they are just as allowed to complain about the players not understanding what they created. Despite what some might claim this is a two way street.
But so far as I see it we have 2 assumptions. Your and mine we both assume our own is correct. There isn't any proof for anything. Both of our statements are based on correlation equaling causation. That EA are greedy a holes who care more about money thing games rushing a heavily anticipated game out the door before it might be ready. And yours that Bioware apparently had all the time in the world to craft the ending and made it exactly how they wanted to. Neither one seem to have any proof.
Really? I think the EC completely changed what the endings were all about. If those "bad interpretations" were not intended, than I'd say the writers did an even worse job than what they were criticized for in the original backlash.
You continue to miss the larger point. The larger point is not about the specifics of the EC or why it was developed. The larger point is how the ending got where it was. The endgame is incoherent and narratively incompatible with the rest of the series. The EC is a direct response to fans. It answers the questions of how your squadmates got on the Normandy, that the relays didn't blow up the systems, and what happens to your squadmates post-game.
You have absolutely no idea how great the outcry actually was.
And theses kind narrative slip ups exist all across the game series. Like how would Geth get by the Noveria screening process? How would a VI program some how adapt an entire new language translations simply by listening to com chatter without anything to compare it to to allow translation? How could a Geth fleet attack and push back the Citadel Fleet after they were aware that they were going to attack. How would the Geth fleet suddenly be destroyed if you didn't sacrifice the 5th Fleet to save the Council? Particularly when the game goes out of it's way to show the Geth are not mind controlled by said Reaper as it shows them worshiping the Reaper in a few different areas. Why does Sovereign go from sitting on his stool laughing at the pathetic attempts to kill him to suddenly shorting out because Shepard killed a glorified husk?
There are moments in game that happen simply because they need them to happen. Either the developers forgot about something or wrote themselves into a corner and need to fix it. Are you a fan of the Harry Potter series? Because JK Rowling pulls this kind of **** all the time with that series.
They tired to fix how the crew got back on the ship and players still complained about it. There are instances that they tried to correct and players still complained. The general vibe I get over and over again is without the EC it shows how bad a writers they are. With EC trying to explain things better it only proves that claim. They attempted to fix stuff and still get **** for it. That is my problem because that shows an unbelievable level of ungratefulness.
https://youtu.be/3MH3vT-spS8?t=3m13s
Some of those complaints are meaningless though like the why didn't the Relay destroy everything. Watch the video right before the relay goes to pieces it shows it firing off a lassie shot of energy emptying the gyroscopic what ever the heck it is suppose to be.
https://youtu.be/7ZDWOenhaUg?t=2m14s
Comparing that to the ending of Arrival DLC were the energy core is forcibly broken out of it's constraints and is released directed. So I personally do not see how people could get confused by this. As well the lack of post choice action to me really is the biggest show of EA stepping in and forcing the game out before they could finish it fully. The complaints acting more as validation for EA to let them waste time to create it rather then ignore the ending and focus just on the DLC to make them more money.
I don't care if EA has an established reputation of rushing games. (And I know that they do.) I care if the story presented makes sense. As a player, it's not my job to connect the dots. It's not my job to fill in the blanks or make assumptions about what the writers meant.
And what happens if EA lives up to that reputation about rushing games?
And what happens if EA lives up to that reputation about rushing games?
I just told you. It's not my job to connect the dots for the writers.
That doesn't actually respond to my statement.
If the writers are suppose to do one job and someone else steps in and prevents them from doing it. Who's fault is it?
Retour en haut
