And where this mystical "minority" is? how can you even know they are a minority? and even if they are (if you say that you judge this by looking how many people made the petition and how many bought the game) that still could mean that apathy had taken over the other ME3 players and did nothing except maybe return the games they bought, rather than complain because it would have been useless (specially for a company that was one of "the good ones" that did know how to write)
I know this wasn't directed at me, and the other person will probably also retort to this comment, but I disagree with both your belief that it was a majority of players and a minority. I personally have found an even split of people whom liked the game (Myself included) and people who vomit their own blood over Mass Effect 3. However, their is definately a minority of people whom even to this day, nearly a year after release are acting like the biggest cry babies and going on about how it ruined their life.
[/quote]
DioWallachia said:
The "Gamer Entitlement" excuse that the journalist made it all worse. What could have ended a year ago, was magnified and extended longer because more people are dismissed as "entitled" or "whiny".
They are like that because the BW got away with its crap and now nobody believes them. Of course they will try and try and try to re-open discussion until someone listens. To the outsiders, most discussions look like this:
They get away with this bullshit and nobody does anything about it? HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD????
Well, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's a duck. The fans are acting entitled when it comes to the story of the game. Just because you enjoy a story does not mean that you own it or have any right to claim that the way it ends is wrong and should immedietly be re-written. Simple.
bug_of_war said:
How dare anyone expect that a company change the story of it's product simply because you (not you personally) didn't like it. If you don't like something, that is fine, you are rightfully entitled to your opinion
How dare the customers for expecting the fridge they bought to ACTUALLY act like a fridge (keeping the food cold) that they thought it was going to act in the first place (instead, it emanates a cloud of Mustard Gas every 5 minutes)
Also, this may be a real shocker to you, but you can have opinions that are based on facts. (This water is wet, the sun is bright, these socks are cozy, etc.)
I can in fact argue that the opinion of the fans is factual, because I'm not actually making an argument: I'm making an observation. The developers themselves said that only the 3rd game would have ACTUAL branching on the narrative because doing so in the first game and building a narrative out of every single choice is a nightmare to code (apparently the other 2 didnt have enough to be even CONSIDERED by them as "branching narrative".) Of course, what the fans had was nothing diffent of what they already had before other than a bunch of meaningless cameos.
BW:Harbinger, say "hi" to the fans!
Harby: ...
Lets dismiss some of my arguments (or other arguments) while we are at it. The planned trilogy doesnt have a place here in the discussion because doing that shit before even the first game manages to sell anything is too risky. Ok, that is fine except that doesnt explain why BW would lie to the fans that already know and trust BW in doing just fine. But that doesnt explain why they couldnt even keep the same writers on the lead to make sure the shit is consistent in the long run.
And as for not having branching, well there IS branching but not what they said it WOULD have, it just the same as before. And even if this "technicallity" makes ALL promises automatically true, that would still be a bad move because the competition RPGs has more branching storytelling and more weight in the decitions, making ME3 a lackbuster product compared to others on sale.
But the tip of the iceberg is this: Your Paragon/Renegade score dictates what you character will AUTOMATICALLY say in the autodialog cutscenes. Let me reiterate: In a game that prides itself on choice and player agency, it decides to do the choices for you.
Your fridge example is blown way the fuck out of proportion. For starters, the only thing that Bioware faultered on with their promise was that you would not choose an A,B or C ending. Now, onto what they did promise. They promised the end to Shepard's story. Check. They promised the effects of the previous two games would resonate in the third game. Check. They promised they would have multiple endings. Check. They promised an action pack adventure with RPG elements. Check.
Onto what you said about the writers. It was established that Mass Effect has been a very carefully written and planned trilogy since day 1. However, it is improbable to write the entire trilogy before the first game, as in doing so means that if the game flops, you have just paid writers for work that will never see daylight and never make a profit. That means all that can be planned is a brief outline of the possibilities the story could branch out to. Now, why they got rid of the old writer/s, I don't know, but I do know that A LOT can happen in 5 years, causing rifts, issues etc in friendships and colleagues.
Now, about Harbinger seemingly just being a cameo character, I believe what Bioware did was better. The Reapers are beggining the cycle, WHY WOULD THE LEADER WASTE HIS TIME ANTAGONIZING 1 HUMAN WHEN HE IS LEADING A MASS GENOCIDE? It makes no sense for Harbinger to focus solely on Shepard when a) The Normandy is invisible to him. b)Shepard is constantly on the move. and c) He is currently leading the mass execution of space faring sapient lifeforms.
I have no idea where the auto dialogue scenes are in Mass Effect 3, I don't recall them ever popping up through my playthrough. I think you may be thinking of Dragon Age 2, that had auto dialogue depending on you dialogue choices. And as for the choices in Mass Effect 3, there were plenty. Save the Krogan, side with the Salarians. Choose the Geth over the Quarians, vice versa, or convince the two to listen to reason. Those are just a few examples of a game that had choice based decisions.
bug_of_war said:
The gaming community are, in my eyes, have the mindset of a child. They go out and spend there money without thinking, and then when something turns sour they get angry. If you don't like something, don't pay for it. If it is something such as how Mass Effect 3's ending, then simply say, I didn't like it, here are my reasons, that's the end of that. I see so many people saying "I HATE HOW THEY MADE DAY ONE DLC" and when I ask them if they'll buy it they say yes. THAT IS WHAT GIVES THE GAMING INDUSTRY INSENTIVE TO DO DAY ONE DLC.
Given the circunstances around DAY ONE DLC, where the fans thought that something as a Protean actually IS relevant to make the plot functional to begin with, AND the fans still thought that this will impact the "branching" of the narrative (this was before they played the rest of the game and noticed that it wasnt true.....and before the ending), it seems that buying it was the best choice for the full enjoyment of the game (unlike other DLCs that are just a bunch of skins of guns that dont bring anything new)
Now, i would have suggested to this people to just wait and watch Youtube to catch what the DLC will contain before purchasing it. It seemed like the ideal solution to me but then, i realised, that in this kind of looooooooooong game where some variables and gameplay are different for each player, most of the viewers will see the lackbuster presentation and branching of this DLC and say:
"Mnnn... maybe i am not seeing the good parts of the DLC and its impact on the plot BECAUSE the player here doesnt like Javik or he/she/it played differently of my super special awesome playthought that saved (and banged) everyone. I guess searching on Youtube for SPECIFIC decitions will take even more time and money than just purchasing the DLC already"
There is also the fact that most BW fans still thought that BW could still be redeemed after the Old Republic and Dragon Age 2 or that they are the last "bastion of innovation and creativity" in the industry (i am reminded of how Valve fans say that too) that they would have trusted this Day 1 DLC as long its THEM doing it (because they deserve the money)
I disagree with you that Javik was an essential part of the experience for Mass Effect 3. I played through the game without him and enjoyed it to it's fullest. I then eventually got Javik just to experience some new dialogue on certain missions. I didn't find his inclusion to be essential to Mass Effect 3, I just saw it as a bonus bit of information, and this is coming from someone who played the series starting from game 1. I personally believed that the Prothean member was kinda meh, I felt that they should have stayed dead because they had their cycle, and this was ours. This doesn't mean I was opposed, I just couldn't care if I bought him on day one or day 70.
Now yes, this is my opinion, but that is the beauty of artistic subjects, they are entirely subjective. So, while you and some fans appear to believe that he was a vital part of ME3 that would have made a lesser experience had he not been n your game, I know people whom played the game without him due to not believing he was vital to the story. The game, in the end showed no signs of fault or broken sections without Javik, hence forth it is quite deducible that Javik was not essential and was just an added bonus to the in-game universe story.
bug_of_war said:
A recent example of gamers acting like children is with EA making micro-transactions in games. Many people jumped up and down crying about EA being greedy, however they completely ignored the fact that the transaction is completely optional and that you do not HAVE to pay for anything if you don't want to. Yet when I pointed this out, they angrily shouted at me that EA is a greedy business, seeming to forget the whole point of a business is to make money. It is not greedy if they give you an option, which, in most cases is what companies do.
So yes, gamers are possesive people and it is NOT a good thing that they are. It stops the gaming industry from moving forward, and makes the term gamer a term that I prefer to steer clear of.
I will elaborate right now on what i left without answer up there: Yes, it is OPTIONAL........but it still preys on the weak willed, the kind of audience that a greedy entity needs, the audience that always falls on the trap of the marketing, and that audience is the one that doesnt have the mental capacity of having a fair fight, and that audience is somehow bigger than the rest of the gamer community combined.........and their wallet is bigger.
What we have here is the gaming equivalent of "The Prisoner's Dilemma": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
Even when we choose the option that benefit us (both Gamer A and B) in the long run, Gamer B still betrays us for a quick gratification. The thrill of victory is just too tempting fot these asshole that now inhabit our community. There NOTHING optional here, is like handing The One True Ring and calling it "optional" to use it against their creators. Bullshit!!! you are going to place THAT thing here and expect EVERYONE to behave? its like having 10 people where 1 is Frollo and the other 9 are Gollums, of course they are going to jump to the oportunity to use it!! that thing shouldnt even exist in the first place because it manipulates people in ways that we cant even imagine!!
Also, you say that its just a bussiness and its not being greedy. Oh yeah? lets pretend i am a reviewer and a producer is not....happy with the score i gave to the game. Then, in a cartonish sort of way, he turns around (his back is in front of me now) and makes a 1000$ dollar bill (lets pretend it exist) fall down behind his back and says: "Oh man, i believe i lost money and it must be in the floor somewhere. I hope that NO ONE *WINK* notices it by the time i turn around to find it!"
Under your logic, the extortion attempt here is OPTIONAL and i CANT call out this man as "an extortionist" for even TRYING this because he is just doing what comes natural (trying to succed at the expense of others)
Even if i dont fall for it, that doesnt mean that this guy isnt doing something wrong in the first place (on both the cases where i dont fall or not for the extortion)
Okay, please point out to me where there is an iron noose around your neck. After all, these "weak minded" cashed up people you speak of have obviously made the industry so bad that it is literally effecting you with every EA product you purchase. Lets have a look, have you at any point been forced to purchase ANY DLC to play a game from start to finish? NO, Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 are all complete games from start to finish on disc, and any and all DLC for them are just their to extend the longevity of the product. Lets move on to the micro-transactions in Dead Space 3. Have they said that the only way to craft items is to purchace the equipment with real money. NO, they have said that for the gamers that are struggling or are not fans of item management that they have the option to by pass this point in the game that they may not be enjoying. This doesn't effect players whom don't want to play though, it just means they will need to go through the item management system and look out for the bits and pieces needed.
And now onto your comment about the publisher bribing reviewers, that's not greedy, that's called bribery. Yes, the bribe causes an increase in the game score, and thus an increase in sales. However, lets look at a few little fun facts. I can tell you are reffering to IGN, a large gaming magazine that gave the score a 9/10 if I remember correctly. Now, lets look at a reviewers that are not as well known and thus extremely likely to not be paid off. For starters, Australian television game review show Good Game awarded Mass Effect 3 Game of the Year. Angry Joe, if I remember correctly awarded the game an 8/10. I believe the Escapist rated ME3 a 4/5, and as far as I am aware there have been no accusations of any of these 3 reviewers being bribed. So, while one company may have been bribed, looking at these three other reviewers I'd say that Mass Effect still stands it's ground on being a well above average game.
Yes, companies are going to try and get as much money as they can out of their consumers, but instead of crying about a business *GAAASP* SHOCK HORROR, ACTING LIKE A COMPANY THAT PAYS PEOPLE AND REQUIRES A PROFIT IN ORDER TO STAY ALIVE AND FUNTIONAL, just don't spend your money. While other people may be weaker willed then you, or just not give a rats ass and purchase it because they want to, that doesn't mean the company is a devil, it means they are a well formed and intelligent business that is thriving off of what they are currently doing. And, when the effects on you are still entirely optional, it's not extortion, it's a company trying to make money and you have every right to say no or yes.
I dont know why DMC fanboys cried about the game that much.It had a story thats a first for the franchise,it had more content than previous games,replayability,difficulty cap,quite a lot of moves and new mechanics to keep the game fresh.Just because the main character is cheesy does that mean the game is bad?Of course not.The cheesyness fitted the characters timeline.I am wondering if someone really cares about the main character or story apart from the combo fighting awesomeness it offers.The art style if i remember correctly resembled DMC3,apart from limbo which seemed nice and fancy
The only thing i didnt like about the game was the SO many weapons and restrictions on to which enemy u should use each weapon but i could beat up demons so i got my money's worth
My retorts.
It had a story, it does not have more content than the old DMC games,all of the old DMCs are replayable and a lot less linear,Old DMC had a difficulty cap,Old DMC has even more moves, the new mechanics do not make it fresh because as you mentioned weapon restrictions. Donte isn't that cheesy he's meant to be taken seriously.
The art style in DMC3 is a mix of Roman and Gothic themes.
I'll add a bit more.
The music has more class
Since you only fight vorgil once I'll only use theme 1.
DMC had more going for it than the rock music you hear.
Sounds better with headphones
A mixture of
" Devils Never Cry " from Devil May Cry 3
" Divine Hate " from Devil May Cry 3
" Devils Never Cry remix " from Marvel VS Capcom 3
" Intro theme " from Devil May Cry 3 Special Edition
Music for the ride, the wall of text is strong in this one:
bug_of_war said:
Well, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's a duck. The fans are acting entitled when it comes to the story of the game. Just because you enjoy a story does not mean that you own it or have any right to claim that the way it ends is wrong and should immedietly be re-written. Simple.
Even if the company was perfectly capable of delivering good quality before? even when the author is actually destroying is own work because of an act of hubris?
It doesnt matter if setting themselves on fire is to make a statement for something, it still doesnt change the fact that they are on.......well, fire. And that, you know, they are dying horribly.
Is there something that they gain by doing this? there is no logical reason for them to do it. Its like a kid having a corpse of a frog as a pet, whose stencht is making everyone in the house sick (even the kid itself), but refuses to let go because its cute and doesnt need feeding.
And besides, Fallout 3 had a stupid ending and they changed that too. I dont see any problem or repercutions on the gaming community when a developers understands the concept of common sense (and understand that there is no integrity on stupidity)
Your fridge example is blown way the fuck out of proportion. For starters, the only thing that Bioware faultered on with their promise was that you would not choose an A,B or C ending. Now, onto what they did promise. They promised the end to Shepard's story. Check. They promised the effects of the previous two games would resonate in the third game. Check. They promised they would have multiple endings. Check. They promised an action pack adventure with RPG elements. Check.
You sure about that? because the game had to slowly abandon its RPG roots from ME1 to have this GOW with Light RPG elements we have in ME3
Also, being the Destruction HIGH EMS ending canon, he/she/it is still alive. Meaning that there WILL be more stories about the Shep (why stop milking the cash cow now?) but the will do a prequel first (i am sure they dont know how to make a sequel to that ending, but that is the least of their problems)
Onto what you said about the writers. It was established that Mass Effect has been a very carefully written and planned trilogy since day 1. However, it is improbable to write the entire trilogy before the first game, as in doing so means that if the game flops, you have just paid writers for work that will never see daylight and never make a profit. That means all that can be planned is a brief outline of the possibilities the story could branch out to. Now, why they got rid of the old writer/s, I don't know, but I do know that A LOT can happen in 5 years, causing rifts, issues etc in friendships and colleagues.
Yes, and what is stopping THOSE new writters in keeping things consistent from what the other guy did? because people play those games to see familiar things return and evolve since the last time they saw it. What is the excuse now? did the notes of the Codes just expontaneously combust?
Now, about Harbinger seemingly just being a cameo character, I believe what Bioware did was better. The Reapers are beggining the cycle, WHY WOULD THE LEADER WASTE HIS TIME ANTAGONIZING 1 HUMAN WHEN HE IS LEADING A MASS GENOCIDE? It makes no sense for Harbinger to focus solely on Shepard when a) The Normandy is invisible to him. b)Shepard is constantly on the move. and c) He is currently leading the mass execution of space faring sapient lifeforms.
The meaningless cameos are for everyone not related to the main plot (that you have to do regardless if they are alive or not) But if you insist:
Harby spent the whole 2nd game taunting us about how big is cyborg dick was, it would be stupid to do it again like it was before but at least it will be consistent.
Also, no, the Normandy isnt invisible to the Reapers. The minigame where you use a signal on the ship to pick up remains in space has a meter that increase Reaper awareness of your location and will get you a game over if they catch you. So what happened to the IFF? was it intended to make ships invisible to Reapers? i got a better question: if that things makes ship invisible to Reapers then why NO ONE is reverse ingeniering it and mass producing it for ALL the ships in the galaxy?? BAM!! surprice attacks to the Reapers with hit and run tactics demostrated in Palaven (as told in the Codex, not the main game. Because why SHOW when you can TELL what happened?) and war over, no deus ex machina device to win.
But wait! you said mass extinction? i thought they were preserving us........but wait! if they preserve ALL of us (organic AND synthetics) then why Harby said that only humans are worth making a Reaper? he even dismissed the Quarians as being suitable for Reapers...........even when they are supposed to protect the organics that MAKE the robots in the first place. But wait!! why not blah blah blah and blah blah blah when blah blah blah was a better idea like blah blah blah.....
....And that is why Blasto prevented the Reapers from going to the Citadel ASAP (like in ALL previous cycles) to shut down the relays and extermin*EJEM* preserve everyone. Because if he didnt, there wont be a game to begin with.....even if the Reapers could repair the console and THEN send the signal to shut down the relays and win.
This game really puts a smile in my face. There is more branching in the plotholes than in the narrative itself
I have no idea where the auto dialogue scenes are in Mass Effect 3, I don't recall them ever popping up through my playthrough. I think you may be thinking of Dragon Age 2, that had auto dialogue depending on you dialogue choices. And as for the choices in Mass Effect 3, there were plenty. Save the Krogan, side with the Salarians. Choose the Geth over the Quarians, vice versa, or convince the two to listen to reason. Those are just a few examples of a game that had choice based decisions.
Just so we are clear, by "auto dialog" i mean the avatar talking more than ever of what i intended him/her/it to talk. Compare Planescape Torment where there is only ONE line exchange before opening another menu with tons of responses to a single line of reply from the person i am talking to.
They are present on DA2 as well on ME3. Here is the version that DA2 had acording to this video: Skip to 2:17
Its based on the general actitude (we have 3 kinds on DA2) but ME3 only had 2 options (Paragon - Renegade). It doesnt matter if it isnt consistent with what YOU want, if one is higher than the other, then that actitude takes over.
Yes, there is choice (i already said that), but hardly the things we were promised and hardly different of what we had before, not enough branching to guarantee 16 different endings (Westwood Blade Runner adaptation had more branching and that was in 1997). They only affect the game for the part they are brought up (the Genophage thing remains impactful in his own little segment and forgotten for the rest of the plot except for the London part and a few mails) and even something as the EMS score or how many scientist there are on the Crusible doesnt affect it all because it is ALWAYS completed when you start the end game (invading the Cerberus Base) no matter how low or high the score is, it will always get done (no matter what) when you decide to invade Cerberus Base. We cannot even divert resourses away from the thing to actually make impactful choices like, for example:
1)Research the Reaper corpse on Rannoch to understand what can penetrate its armor and even make Reaper armor for our ships
2)Recreate or make functional the "Klendagon Weapon". We know it killed a Reaper before (The Derelict Reaper), so having it working again would be more useful than a deus ex machina device
3)Mass produce more Thanix Cannons. We knew they are already installed and mass produced in every ship and that it can ignore ALL shields (thanks to Sovereing bitting the dust)
But nope, its Deus Ex machina or NOTHING. We dont even get a convincing display of Reaper power when we reject them with the Refusal ending. We just lose because..........because, even when it was clear that the cycle here had a lot of potential to win (we even see it happening.) All plays out like a linear game with just slighly different things on the background. It will be like saying that our choices matter because a random person acknowledge that i am using a Dragon Age DLC armor or something. Did people forget how games worked 15 years ago? are we that starved on choice that even someone comenting on how the colour of our hair means that our choices matter?
I disagree with you that Javik was an essential part of the experience for Mass Effect 3. I played through the game without him and enjoyed it to it's fullest. I then eventually got Javik just to experience some new dialogue on certain missions. I didn't find his inclusion to be essential to Mass Effect 3, I just saw it as a bonus bit of information, and this is coming from someone who played the series starting from game 1. I personally believed that the Prothean member was kinda meh, I felt that they should have stayed dead because they had their cycle, and this was ours. This doesn't mean I was opposed, I just couldn't care if I bought him on day one or day 70.
Now yes, this is my opinion, but that is the beauty of artistic subjects, they are entirely subjective. So, while you and some fans appear to believe that he was a vital part of ME3 that would have made a lesser experience had he not been n your game, I know people whom played the game without him due to not believing he was vital to the story. The game, in the end showed no signs of fault or broken sections without Javik, hence forth it is quite deducible that Javik was not essential and was just an added bonus to the in-game universe story.
Well, yes, of course he is useless (i said that already.) But again, if we take what BW did with previous DLC before, it seemed like it COULD be really impacting.
Take for example The Lair Of The Shadow Brooker, a ME2 DLC so good......that made ME2 plot completely pointless. People probably thought that this ME3 DLC would have been the same but they were wrong. It wasnt vital nor made anything trully different (much like everything else in ME3). Again, it was this idea that BW actually cares about their customers that come considered worth paying. After all, this is the SAME BW that made Baldurs Gate and Knight of The Old Republic, right?? ........right???
Also, Liara was kinda wasted for someone that can "Create wars in a few minutes" wont you said? But wait, that would make the game pointless!! lets make sure that she doesnt get to do anything important, we can have our choices making real impact in the plot, can we?
Okay, please point out to me where there is an iron noose around your neck. After all, these "weak minded" cashed up people you speak of have obviously made the industry so bad that it is literally effecting you with every EA product you purchase. Lets have a look, have you at any point been forced to purchase ANY DLC to play a game from start to finish? NO, Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 are all complete games from start to finish on disc, and any and all DLC for them are just their to extend the longevity of the product. Lets move on to the micro-transactions in Dead Space 3. Have they said that the only way to craft items is to purchace the equipment with real money. NO, they have said that for the gamers that are struggling or are not fans of item management that they have the option to by pass this point in the game that they may not be enjoying. This doesn't effect players whom don't want to play though, it just means they will need to go through the item management system and look out for the bits and pieces needed.
I was talking more on the unbalanced and exploitative decitions, like the Gem System on Street Fighter Vs Tekken. But its just a matter of time before EA jumps in the bandwagon. I mean, why moderate to the fights to make it fair when the gamers can control themselves just fine, amaright? lets get more of the batshit stupid demographics to help too.
And now onto your comment about the publisher bribing reviewers, that's not greedy, that's called bribery. Yes, the bribe causes an increase in the game score, and thus an increase in sales. However, lets look at a few little fun facts. I can tell you are reffering to IGN, a large gaming magazine that gave the score a 9/10 if I remember correctly. Now, lets look at a reviewers that are not as well known and thus extremely likely to not be paid off. For starters, Australian television game review show Good Game awarded Mass Effect 3 Game of the Year. Angry Joe, if I remember correctly awarded the game an 8/10. I believe the Escapist rated ME3 a 4/5, and as far as I am aware there have been no accusations of any of these 3 reviewers being bribed. So, while one company may have been bribed, looking at these three other reviewers I'd say that Mass Effect still stands it's ground on being a well above average game.
Actually it was just an example for the sake of an example. Not bashing IGN or the other idiots. I should have used the "bribe" word instead of "extortion" but the case still stands because both of those actions are WRONG. And that is terrible.
But if you insist in bringing this up:
Point of interest starts at 17:50 to 23:56
So, you said that these people on The Escapist gave good scores....so? what do they base the score on? did they analyze the story? i know Shamus Young did and he is from this website too. He looked at the series, the game itself and the ending:
Again, how do they know the game is good? compared to what is good? certainly not on gaming as a whole, and not even by its "unique" feature of branching storyline (The Witcher 2 does it better and that is a recent example)
Yes, companies are going to try and get as much money as they can out of their consumers, but instead of crying about a business *GAAASP* SHOCK HORROR, ACTING LIKE A COMPANY THAT PAYS PEOPLE AND REQUIRES A PROFIT IN ORDER TO STAY ALIVE AND FUNTIONAL, just don't spend your money. While other people may be weaker willed then you, or just not give a rats ass and purchase it because they want to, that doesn't mean the company is a devil, it means they are a well formed and intelligent business that is thriving off of what they are currently doing. And, when the effects on you are still entirely optional, it's not extortion, it's a company trying to make money and you have every right to say no or yes.
I dont know. If a company is well formed and knows what they are doing........then why are they dying? why is it collapsing on itself? is it the incompetence? or is doing something that NO ONE agrees but themselves?
Thanks for your consideration, however I have my own writing music that I prefer to listen to.
bug_of_war said:
Well, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's a duck. The fans are acting entitled when it comes to the story of the game. Just because you enjoy a story does not mean that you own it or have any right to claim that the way it ends is wrong and should immedietly be re-written. Simple.
Even if the company was perfectly capable of delivering good quality before? even when the author is actually destroying is own work because of an act of hubris?
It doesnt matter if setting themselves on fire is to make a statement for something, it still doesnt change the fact that they are on.......well, fire. And that, you know, they are dying horribly.
Is there something that they gain by doing this? there is no logical reason for them to do it. Its like a kid having a corpse of a frog as a pet, whose stencht is making everyone in the house sick (even the kid itself), but refuses to let go because its cute and doesnt need feeding.
And besides, Fallout 3 had a stupid ending and they changed that too. I dont see any problem or repercutions on the gaming community when a developers understands the concept of common sense (and understand that there is no integrity on stupidity)
Again, I disagree in the sense that the quality of the story dropped in anyway, I believe the focus of the story has shifted focus and that many people got annoyed because of it. I'll elaborate, the first game was all about explaining the universe to the player. There was a lot of exposition, lots of codex explanations, and the gamplay lacked because of it. Because of the huge focus on creating this grand universe, the RPG elements were poorly executed, the gunplay was really bad during early levels, and with places such as random planets and the citadel were quite large but also quite boring. Mass Effect 2 streamlined this and made the gameplay more enjoyable whilst also keeping the story connected. They focused less on blatant expositions and more on character development and gameplay. As with Mass Effect 3, the universe had already been explained, characters were already developed, and the main focus on the story was to stop the Reapers. I personally see no problem with the shift in focus and I believe the quality of writing stayed the same. And before you blame the other writers for the ending, I believe there is an article somewhere that has some of the writers claimed that Casey Hudson wrote the ending. While I liked the ending and was happy with it, some people weren't, and that is the beauty of art, it's subjective and we all have different opinions on things like games, music, film, books etc. This is why I find it wrong to demand the ending be changed, because you are asking something be changed when there is a demographic that enjoy what it is. That, and it is not your property and while you were given the chance to experience, it does not mean you have a right to change something.
bug_of_war said:
Your fridge example is blown way the fuck out of proportion. For starters, the only thing that Bioware faultered on with their promise was that you would not choose an A,B or C ending. Now, onto what they did promise. They promised the end to Shepard's story. Check. They promised the effects of the previous two games would resonate in the third game. Check. They promised they would have multiple endings. Check. They promised an action pack adventure with RPG elements. Check.
You sure about that? because the game had to slowly abandon its RPG roots from ME1 to have this GOW with Light RPG elements we have in ME3
Also, being the Destruction HIGH EMS ending canon, he/she/it is still alive. Meaning that there WILL be more stories about the Shep (why stop milking the cash cow now?) but the will do a prequel first (i am sure they dont know how to make a sequel to that ending, but that is the least of their problems)
I am quite certain your fridge example is blown out of proprtion. Firstly, the RPG system and the fighting system were broken as hell in the first game. The shooting and ability usage was crap , the controls were below average, the armour and weapon custimization was lacking diversity, the characters were cut-outs and the leveling system was poorly made. the second game improoved on the fighting, and the third improoved on both. Bioware promised an action/adventure/RPG and by the third game, we got a well made game with an interesting story and some RPG elements. So many people crack on about how Mass Effect was an RPG, but they all seem to forget that the original RPG mechanics were the worst thing about Mass Effect 1.
I'll just elaborate a little more before I move on. The armour and weapon custimization lacked diversity because once you got a certain upgrade you liked, the rest of the upgrades would be turned to omni-stuff to hack doors with. Also, many of the custimizations did relatively similar things such as acid rounds, cryo rounds and flame rounds. As for the characters being cut-outs, Liara was the in experienced little girl who was there to explain what the Reapers were, Wrex was the Mercanary, Ashley was the racist, Kaiden was cannon fodder nice, Tali was the pilgrim and Garrus was the Agent with questionable morals. None of the characters got any real development besides maybe Wrex, and they lacked definition in fights as I am able to go through the whole game using 1 team without experiencing any difficulty. All my squad members can take down any geth, that's not a good RPG. Mass Effect 3 forced me to always bring a diversity of Soldier, Tech and Biotic, that's an RPG. As for the leveling system, there were too many options and points to put into them to really flesh out a character. The way you had to unlock some also meant you had to put upgrades into areas that you wouldn't use, thus wasting the upgrade points. The second and third game streamlined it so that while there were less abilities, they had a more prominent effect in game. They took the route less is more, and it really was, instead of being clouded with all this messy areas they made it more simple which I believed really worked in the games favour.
bug_of_war said:
Onto what you said about the writers. It was established that Mass Effect has been a very carefully written and planned trilogy since day 1. However, it is improbable to write the entire trilogy before the first game, as in doing so means that if the game flops, you have just paid writers for work that will never see daylight and never make a profit. That means all that can be planned is a brief outline of the possibilities the story could branch out to. Now, why they got rid of the old writer/s, I don't know, but I do know that A LOT can happen in 5 years, causing rifts, issues etc in friendships and colleagues.
Yes, and what is stopping THOSE new writters in keeping things consistent from what the other guy did? because people play those games to see familiar things return and evolve since the last time they saw it. What is the excuse now? did the notes of the Codes just expontaneously combust?
Whats stopping them is that they are not the original writers. Asking them to write exactly like the previous writer is asking the impossible. All writers have their own style, flare and knowledge on the topic they created. So, to then expect new writers to know EVERYTHING about an entire series that spans from comics, novels, film and game is like expecting someone to know everything about shakespere and have them write a sequel to Macbeth, or Richard the 3rd. YOU CAN'T, as a human being, copy another persons work flawlessly, all you can do is give it your best attempt with as much knowledge at hand, and I think they did a great job, I still felt like I was in the Mass Effect universe. Again, this comes down to personal opinions, while you and others yadadadada, I and others yadadada.
bug_of_war said:
Now, about Harbinger seemingly just being a cameo character, I believe what Bioware did was better. The Reapers are beggining the cycle, WHY WOULD THE LEADER WASTE HIS TIME ANTAGONIZING 1 HUMAN WHEN HE IS LEADING A MASS GENOCIDE? It makes no sense for Harbinger to focus solely on Shepard when a) The Normandy is invisible to him. b)Shepard is constantly on the move. and c) He is currently leading the mass execution of space faring sapient lifeforms.
The meaningless cameos are for everyone not related to the main plot (that you have to do regardless if they are alive or not) But if you insist:
Harby spent the whole 2nd game taunting us about how big is cyborg dick was, it would be stupid to do it again like it was before but at least it will be consistent.
Also, no, the Normandy isnt invisible to the Reapers. The minigame where you use a signal on the ship to pick up remains in space has a meter that increase Reaper awareness of your location and will get you a game over if they catch you. So what happened to the IFF? was it intended to make ships invisible to Reapers? i got a better question: if that things makes ship invisible to Reapers then why NO ONE is reverse ingeniering it and mass producing it for ALL the ships in the galaxy?? BAM!! surprice attacks to the Reapers with hit and run tactics demostrated in Palaven (as told in the Codex, not the main game. Because why SHOW when you can TELL what happened?) and war over, no deus ex machina device to win.
But wait! you said mass extinction? i thought they were preserving us........but wait! if they preserve ALL of us (organic AND synthetics) then why Harby said that only humans are worth making a Reaper? he even dismissed the Quarians as being suitable for Reapers...........even when they are supposed to protect the organics that MAKE the robots in the first place. But wait!! why not blah blah blah and blah blah blah when blah blah blah was a better idea like blah blah blah.....
....And that is why Blasto prevented the Reapers from going to the Citadel ASAP (like in ALL previous cycles) to shut down the relays and extermin*EJEM* preserve everyone. Because if he didnt, there wont be a game to begin with.....even if the Reapers could repair the console and THEN send the signal to shut down the relays and win.
This game really puts a smile in my face. There is more branching in the plotholes than in the narrative itself
"it would be stupid to do it again like it was before but at least it will be consistent", so you would rather the story be more stupid than you already believe it to be simply because it would be consistent with how the second game played. I felt it was consitent with Harbingers character that he no longer is out to insult Shepard and focus on him. At the end of the game Harbinger talks about how Shepard is dealing with matters that are far greater than his comprehension, so why would Harbinger then, in Mass Effect 3 still waste time taking over foot soldiers to taunt Shepard. I'm pretty sure when you butt fuck Earth on your arrival you've shown the enemy that your a powerhouse mother fucker. He doesn't need to taunt Shepard because he's already shown his full power.
The Reapers don't chase you because they KNOW the signal is coming from the Normandy, they chase you because it is a ship signal being output in a galaxy and they're trying to grab all the organics. As for why they didn't reverse engineer the technology, they didn't have time. Nobody believed that the Reapers were real, everyone passed it off as Shepard being paranoid. So, WHY would other races reverse engineer technology when they have no need for it. If you're about to say "BUT WE'RE IN A WAR", then here is my retort to that. Yes, the galaxy is in a war, which means they need to put all resources into stopping the Reapers. However, instead of reverse engineering technology that would take too much time to distribute, the galaxy decides to go with the crucible, a plan that nearly every previous cycle believed would work.
Harbinger never said they preserve synthetics, only organics. I believe it is also mentioned somewhere in ME3 that only the most influencial races are turned into the reapers while the rest of the sapient species are turned into husks. The entire idea is that they are not trying to preserve current sapient life, but future life, be it sentient or not. They care little for the sapient life at present, they care about the future of sapient life in the Milky Way.
bug_of_war said:
I have no idea where the auto dialogue scenes are in Mass Effect 3, I don't recall them ever popping up through my playthrough. I think you may be thinking of Dragon Age 2, that had auto dialogue depending on you dialogue choices. And as for the choices in Mass Effect 3, there were plenty. Save the Krogan, side with the Salarians. Choose the Geth over the Quarians, vice versa, or convince the two to listen to reason. Those are just a few examples of a game that had choice based decisions.
Just so we are clear, by "auto dialog" i mean the avatar talking more than ever of what i intended him/her/it to talk. Compare Planescape Torment where there is only ONE line exchange before opening another menu with tons of responses to a single line of reply from the person i am talking to.
They are present on DA2 as well on ME3. Here is the version that DA2 had acording to this video: Skip to 2:17
Its based on the general actitude (we have 3 kinds on DA2) but ME3 only had 2 options (Paragon - Renegade). It doesnt matter if it isnt consistent with what YOU want, if one is higher than the other, then that actitude takes over.
Yes, there is choice (i already said that), but hardly the things we were promised and hardly different of what we had before, not enough branching to guarantee 16 different endings (Westwood Blade Runner adaptation had more branching and that was in 1997). They only affect the game for the part they are brought up (the Genophage thing remains impactful in his own little segment and forgotten for the rest of the plot except for the London part and a few mails) and even something as the EMS score or how many scientist there are on the Crusible doesnt affect it all because it is ALWAYS completed when you start the end game (invading the Cerberus Base) no matter how low or high the score is, it will always get done (no matter what) when you decide to invade Cerberus Base. We cannot even divert resourses away from the thing to actually make impactful choices like, for example:
1)Research the Reaper corpse on Rannoch to understand what can penetrate its armor and even make Reaper armor for our ships
2)Recreate or make functional the "Klendagon Weapon". We know it killed a Reaper before (The Derelict Reaper), so having it working again would be more useful than a deus ex machina device
3)Mass produce more Thanix Cannons. We knew they are already installed and mass produced in every ship and that it can ignore ALL shields (thanks to Sovereing bitting the dust)
But nope, its Deus Ex machina or NOTHING. We dont even get a convincing display of Reaper power when we reject them with the Refusal ending. We just lose because..........because, even when it was clear that the cycle here had a lot of potential to win (we even see it happening.) All plays out like a linear game with just slighly different things on the background. It will be like saying that our choices matter because a random person acknowledge that i am using a Dragon Age DLC armor or something. Did people forget how games worked 15 years ago? are we that starved on choice that even someone comenting on how the colour of our hair means that our choices matter?
To be honest, that sounds like a boring game where I have to continue to click on dialogue segments to continue a conversation, in fact it sounds like filler gameplay. I don't wanna have to sit down and keep telling my character to say something, and for the most part I found the auto dilogue suit the situation.
Choices you make have an effect throughout the whole story. For example, if you side with the Salarians and Wrex is alive, he will find out and you will be forced to kill him and loose suppourt of the Krogans. IF however Wreave is alive and Eve is dead, he will never know and you will continue having both Salarian and Krogan support. Onto the whole, "Why didn't they research this", while I can't say why not, I can propose the theory that in war, you take desperate measures. The Crucible was a desperate measure, it was supported by every previous race, so why not give it a shot.
I see you calling the Crucible a Deus ex Machina, I hate that this has been thrown around because everyone seems to have forgotten what a DEM really is. A Deus Ex Machina is an I win button that has not been hinted at at all throught the entire story and comes in at the very end of the game. This does not hold true for the Crucible. Firstly, the Crucible is introduced in the second mission of the game and we are told that it has the power to stop the Reapers. We now know at the start of the game that it is a weapon that has the ability to stop the reapers, but we don't know how it will stop the Reapers. In the end, we find out that it can Destroy, Control, or Synthesize, and these effects are not DEM either. I'll explain, the 3 games go by human psyche, in the sense of we hate, fear and want the unknown to be destroyed. Second stage, we learn a little about the unknown and begin wanting to control it, and finally, when we know everything there is to know we come to accept it. A more easy way to show this is with Vampires. At first we feared them, then we learnt more about them and made hunter characters like Van Helsing, and now, we have twilight, where everyone seems to want to be a vampire. How does this huge chunk fit with the ME series? Well, Reapers are the unknown in the first game, and we want Soverign destroyed, and in the end he is. Second game, we know more about the Reapers and the Illusive Man proposes the possibility of controlling them (in both ME2 and 3). By the third game the entire idea is unify the galaxy to save it. In it's most literal sense you are unifying organic and synthetic creatures in the synthesis ending.
What about the starchild? he is totally a DEM! Well, actually no, the starchild is the catalyst, we have known about the catalyst for some time and understand that we need it to make the Crucible work.
THERE IS NO DEUS EX MACHINA IN MASS EFFECT 3, there IS however a somewhat contrived ending that just fits well with how the series progressed.
Yes there are plot holes, but there will always be plot holes in a universe as big as the Mass Effect series.
bug_of_war said:
I disagree with you that Javik was an essential part of the experience for Mass Effect 3. I played through the game without him and enjoyed it to it's fullest. I then eventually got Javik just to experience some new dialogue on certain missions. I didn't find his inclusion to be essential to Mass Effect 3, I just saw it as a bonus bit of information, and this is coming from someone who played the series starting from game 1. I personally believed that the Prothean member was kinda meh, I felt that they should have stayed dead because they had their cycle, and this was ours. This doesn't mean I was opposed, I just couldn't care if I bought him on day one or day 70.
Now yes, this is my opinion, but that is the beauty of artistic subjects, they are entirely subjective. So, while you and some fans appear to believe that he was a vital part of ME3 that would have made a lesser experience had he not been n your game, I know people whom played the game without him due to not believing he was vital to the story. The game, in the end showed no signs of fault or broken sections without Javik, hence forth it is quite deducible that Javik was not essential and was just an added bonus to the in-game universe story.
Well, yes, of course he is useless (i said that already.) But again, if we take what BW did with previous DLC before, it seemed like it COULD be really impacting.
Take for example The Lair Of The Shadow Brooker, a ME2 DLC so good......that made ME2 plot completely pointless. People probably thought that this ME3 DLC would have been the same but they were wrong. It wasnt vital nor made anything trully different (much like everything else in ME3). Again, it was this idea that BW actually cares about their customers that come considered worth paying. After all, this is the SAME BW that made Baldurs Gate and Knight of The Old Republic, right?? ........right???
Also, Liara was kinda wasted for someone that can "Create wars in a few minutes" wont you said? But wait, that would make the game pointless!! lets make sure that she doesnt get to do anything important, we can have our choices making real impact in the plot, can we?
I never got any of Mass Effect 2's DLC, so I'm sorry I can't comment on it's effect and will have to take your word that it did make an impact in the game.
When I first heard that Liara became the Shadow Broker I thought, "Wait, you mean that annoying ***** that cries over everything and acts like a 5 year old and is so horny for me that she gets wet everytime I come in is now the galaxys most dangerous person...THE FUCK!?". I honestly see Liara as the weakest character in Shepards entire team, she was nothing special in the first game but for some reason they tried making this child into a badass, and the best way they could do that was by making her become the Shadow Broker? THAT seems lazy to me, especially seeing as how if I have read all this correctly, Shepard is the one who gets her into that position.
Honestly, that is all I have to say on that, and I can't really defend something that I have not experienced. I have given my 10 cents on Liara and the writers direction they went with her though...don't know if it helps you see things from my perspective but hey, it's there for analysing.
bug_of_war said:
Okay, please point out to me where there is an iron noose around your neck. After all, these "weak minded" cashed up people you speak of have obviously made the industry so bad that it is literally effecting you with every EA product you purchase. Lets have a look, have you at any point been forced to purchase ANY DLC to play a game from start to finish? NO, Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 are all complete games from start to finish on disc, and any and all DLC for them are just their to extend the longevity of the product. Lets move on to the micro-transactions in Dead Space 3. Have they said that the only way to craft items is to purchace the equipment with real money. NO, they have said that for the gamers that are struggling or are not fans of item management that they have the option to by pass this point in the game that they may not be enjoying. This doesn't effect players whom don't want to play though, it just means they will need to go through the item management system and look out for the bits and pieces needed.
I was talking more on the unbalanced and exploitative decitions, like the Gem System on Street Fighter Vs Tekken. But its just a matter of time before EA jumps in the bandwagon. I mean, why moderate to the fights to make it fair when the gamers can control themselves just fine, amaright? lets get more of the batshit stupid demographics to help too.
Street Fighter vs Tekken is a Capcom game, and as I've said, Capcom is worse than EA, however they are not evil, they are just more willing to be morally flexible to continue making money, and as a company competing in a market you gotta try and make as much money as you can. It's not fair or right, but that's business.
bug_of_war said:
And now onto your comment about the publisher bribing reviewers, that's not greedy, that's called bribery. Yes, the bribe causes an increase in the game score, and thus an increase in sales. However, lets look at a few little fun facts. I can tell you are reffering to IGN, a large gaming magazine that gave the score a 9/10 if I remember correctly. Now, lets look at a reviewers that are not as well known and thus extremely likely to not be paid off. For starters, Australian television game review show Good Game awarded Mass Effect 3 Game of the Year. Angry Joe, if I remember correctly awarded the game an 8/10. I believe the Escapist rated ME3 a 4/5, and as far as I am aware there have been no accusations of any of these 3 reviewers being bribed. So, while one company may have been bribed, looking at these three other reviewers I'd say that Mass Effect still stands it's ground on being a well above average game.
Actually it was just an example for the sake of an example. Not bashing IGN or the other idiots. I should have used the "bribe" word instead of "extortion" but the case still stands because both of those actions are WRONG. And that is terrible.
But if you insist in bringing this up:
Point of interest starts at 17:50 to 23:56
So, you said that these people on The Escapist gave good scores....so? what do they base the score on? did they analyze the story? i know Shamus Young did and he is from this website too. He looked at the series, the game itself and the ending:
Again, how do they know the game is good? compared to what is good? certainly not on gaming as a whole, and not even by its "unique" feature of branching storyline (The Witcher 2 does it better and that is a recent example)
Yes, bribery is wrong, and it happens, but that is why you should never base your opinion on something off of one thing. You can't say a certain food is bad after 1 mouthful. You can't say a certain music genre is bad after hearing 1 song.
I have also seen Angry Joe's top 10 gaming scandals, and I did see the ending as number 2, but he still found it as a good game. As for what you said about "what makes a game good", this is ENTIRELY subjective, and a good reviewer like Joe or Shamus Young will outline their reasons. It is then up to you to decide if these line up with the things you find important in a game. For example, Angry Joe HATES the new Dante and Vergil in DMC Devil May Cry, but that didn't stop him from giving the game a 7/10 for it's gameplay and what not. He gave a fair score to the game based off of it's gameplay and not off of it being part of a franchise.
bug_of_war said:
Yes, companies are going to try and get as much money as they can out of their consumers, but instead of crying about a business *GAAASP* SHOCK HORROR, ACTING LIKE A COMPANY THAT PAYS PEOPLE AND REQUIRES A PROFIT IN ORDER TO STAY ALIVE AND FUNTIONAL, just don't spend your money. While other people may be weaker willed then you, or just not give a rats ass and purchase it because they want to, that doesn't mean the company is a devil, it means they are a well formed and intelligent business that is thriving off of what they are currently doing. And, when the effects on you are still entirely optional, it's not extortion, it's a company trying to make money and you have every right to say no or yes.
I dont know. If a company is well formed and knows what they are doing........then why are they dying? why is it collapsing on itself? is it the incompetence? or is doing something that NO ONE agrees but themselves?
I would say it's because of their recent games not being very good (Warfighter) and the majority of gamers seeming to loathe the company and refusing to buy a game simply because EA has it's brand on the game. What most people don't realise that is if EA dies, so does all of it's developers. There is currently a thread on the Escapist about things people have Boycotted, and there are several people on it saying things like, "I'm boycotting EA even though I really want a few of their games. I just can't handle EA and their practices". This is bullshit, if you want something, get it, don't deny yourself pleasure because you don't like the person who published it. It's almost like saying, "I don't watch Universal Studios films because I don't like the people who work at Universal even though I like their movies". EA is getting more hate than they deserve and this is effecting their sales figures.
I have one simple question: If the reboot uses nothing of the original IP except in name only, then why didnt they use an original IP instead of buying that one?
... They did not buy the IP. By any chances they were most probably told by the IP holder (Capcom) to make a DmC game. Because a reboot was needed in their eyes (4 did not sell well and was already pretty much 'lets do everything twice').
Kat:"Now you'll have to go through the five stories of hell." Dante gets into an elevator, elevator music starts... roughly 15 seconds go by "She was right, this is hell.").
Going to be breif so you can at least watch the videos with the extra time.
bug_of_war said:
Again, I disagree in the sense that the quality of the story dropped in anyway, I believe the focus of the story has shifted focus and that many people got annoyed because of it. I'll elaborate, the first game was all about explaining the universe to the player. There was a lot of exposition, lots of codex explanations, and the gamplay lacked because of it. Because of the huge focus on creating this grand universe, the RPG elements were poorly executed, the gunplay was really bad during early levels, and with places such as random planets and the citadel were quite large but also quite boring. Mass Effect 2 streamlined this and made the gameplay more enjoyable whilst also keeping the story connected. They focused less on blatant expositions and more on character development and gameplay. As with Mass Effect 3, the universe had already been explained, characters were already developed, and the main focus on the story was to stop the Reapers. I personally see no problem with the shift in focus and I believe the quality of writing stayed the same. And before you blame the other writers for the ending, I believe there is an article somewhere that has some of the writers claimed that Casey Hudson wrote the ending. While I liked the ending and was happy with it, some people weren't, and that is the beauty of art, it's subjective and we all have different opinions on things like games, music, film, books etc. This is why I find it wrong to demand the ending be changed, because you are asking something be changed when there is a demographic that enjoy what it is. That, and it is not your property and while you were given the chance to experience, it does not mean you have a right to change something.
I dont blame the other writers for the ending, i blame them for the part they worked on. Stopping the Reapers WAS the overarching plot on ME2 and ME3, but M2 didnt do anything meaningful with it (we end up making alliances on M3 instead) and instead of fighting the Reapers on ME3, we fight Cerberus who somehow got more resourses AND time to even produce an entire fleet to fight against EVERYONE on the galaxy. Cerberus became The Empire of Stars Wars in....what? 6 months after ME2? Hell, even the earlier scripts had TIM as the final boss, instead of, you know, the Reapers??
Again, is not that we want to take control over the writing, is more like talking to an old friend who say himself that he has a drinking problem.......and keep on drinking while he is talking to you. This friend claimed that he wanted to stop but he KEEP ON GOING with it, we just want to politely tell him to (and i quote here): "Stop being a retarded hypocrite".
This is similar on how the developers on ME couldnt stop lying about the contents of the game, even a day before releasing the game itself.
To that we ask: What IS what the author wants? he starts saying one thing and end up doing another. Hell, why does he think that this is HIS vision?? you said before that other writers have their own writting style, therefore, it means that they have both a vision and something to tell in this big work done by lots of people. Why THEIR opinions about that one guy doing only 10-15 minutes of the ending (taking all the credits for the vision as a whole) are being ignored? do they really think that the ending (or even the parts that they didnt work in) have the same consistency as everything else?
I remember talking about the "who gets the credits for your work" kind of question in this thread:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.398232-Games-as-art?page=2
Posts 37-39
A similar game with the same problem of being worse because of the contradicting mentality of the developers (both inside the game narrative AND interviews) is Spec Ops: The Line:
Right, i should have said that they sold me funtional fridges for over a decade BEFORE "expanding the audience" by adding the ones that have the Mustard Gas version that smells like Channel Nº5.
So, ME1 had bad controls and alot of other stuff that needed polish. Yes, it is true, but THIS is the price we have to pay? it this BW definition of polished? either fuck it up or remove it completely (The Mako segments, borrowed from the game Star Control 2: The Ur Quan Masters):
All my squad members can take down any geth, that's not a good RPG.
Chris Avellone, the man who wrote Planescape Torment (The Best RPG of all time) and Fallout New Vegas, says different about having everyone be useful. It gives the player the capacity of choosing the members they like as a character rather than who is more useful (because they are balanced enough to stand on their own):
Whats stopping them is that they are not the original writers. Asking them to write exactly like the previous writer is asking the impossible. All writers have their own style, flare and knowledge on the topic they created. So, to then expect new writers to know EVERYTHING about an entire series that spans from comics, novels, film and game is like expecting someone to know everything about shakespere and have them write a sequel to Macbeth, or Richard the 3rd.
How is supposed to make sense? For example, Batman gets rewritten all the time by lots of writters and it is still recogniced as Batman by the fans. Why? because the themes or unique features that make Batman be Batman are still there, just played differently. Are you telling me that the new writters couldnt EVEN ask for the footnotes of what Batman IS?
Here, let me use the Metroid Other M Liveblog to ilustrate better what i mean:
Start at: "Why Do You Like This Scene?", you will eventually get to the part where they mention Batman and you will see what i mean.
THEN you tell me if the writers on ME2 actually DID consider what happened on ME1? (by the way, the lead writer Drew Karpyshyn also worked on ME2, this time alongside Mac Walters. So not even the same writer can get this thing straight)
"it would be stupid to do it again like it was before but at least it will be consistent", so you would rather the story be more stupid than you already believe it to be simply because it would be consistent with how the second game played.
Dont look at me like that, it was the writers who wrote themselves in this corner of "stupid antagonist syndrome" AKA Villain Ball. And since good writting contains the "Law of Conservation of Detail" then they may as well DO something meaninful with this guy they created, or otherwise it would be a waste of time for them AND the audience.
I felt it was consitent with Harbingers character that he no longer is out to insult Shepard and focus on him. At the end of the game Harbinger talks about how Shepard is dealing with matters that are far greater than his comprehension, so why would Harbinger then, in Mass Effect 3 still waste time taking over foot soldiers to taunt Shepard. I'm pretty sure when you butt fuck Earth on your arrival you've shown the enemy that your a powerhouse mother fucker. He doesn't need to taunt Shepard because he's already shown his full power.
He has demostrated his power by buttfuking Earth? because the Protean visions with the Cypher, Sovereing playing The Juggernaut on The Citadel, and the Derelict Reaper indoctrinating everyone WASNT enough to convince Shepards that he is a threat alredy? An 2 of the things i listed here happened before Harby even talked non stop about his power (in english no less, because you know, he has to fill you in the loop about his plans. Being in dark space is kinda lonely)
The Reapers don't chase you because they KNOW the signal is coming from the Normandy, they chase you because it is a ship signal being output in a galaxy and they're trying to grab all the organics.
So it ISNT invisible as you said. But that means that Harbinger COULD have killed us during this scene in the Extended Cut when we get the squadmates to the Normandy........but just stands there not shooting the slow ass ship.
As for why they didn't reverse engineer the technology, they didn't have time. Nobody believed that the Reapers were real, everyone passed it off as Shepard being paranoid. So, WHY would other races reverse engineer technology when they have no need for it. If you're about to say "BUT WE'RE IN A WAR", then here is my retort to that. Yes, the galaxy is in a war, which means they need to put all resources into stopping the Reapers. However, instead of reverse engineering technology that would take too much time to distribute, the galaxy decides to go with the crucible, a plan that nearly every previous cycle believed would work.
Nobody believed about The Reapers but that didnt stop them in reverse ingeniering Sovereing technology and mass producing it into Thanix Cannons. All Shepards had to do to help the galaxy is that say "this is Reaper te-I MEAN- Cybersquid Geth Capital Ship tech. Remember how it kicked our asses? well, we better develop more of that shit for ourselves"
So reverse ingeniering something that WAS proven to be efective before AND that IS possible to reverse ingenier in the first place.....takes more time. (it seems that Reapers ARENT so "beyond comprehention" like they said they are, if we can make those weapons AND develop EDI in the first place out of their remains)
Acording to you, it even takes even MORE time than developing The Crusible. An object that, i remind you, took the longer effort of many many cycles........but somehow, WE are going to finish it in time, faster than making reverse ingenier attempts on KNOW technology. And for bonus points, we dont KNOW what The Crusible even does beyond "taking the word of the previous cycles for it"
I dont know what military training makes you use UNKNOWN variables to win wars, but sure as hell it isnt the human one.
Also, that is an "appeal to tradition". Just because the other cycles thought it could work without even knowing what it does (nor we get to know that until the ending) and did it every time, doesnt mean we SHOULD do it too (specially without information)
EDIT1: This could be the perfect time for Shepard to either use his connections on Cerberus or even Liara as Shadow Brooker to obtain resourses to mass produce the weapons against Reapers AND make sure that people are infiltrated in all military facilities to ship the new weapons to all ships in the galaxy, all while keeping as low profile as possible. It will be the equivalent of someone stealthily entering your house at night to replace your Nerf Guns with real guns, so the family (and even your kids) can shoot down a bunch of hitmen that are about to kill you all.
Its ilegal, sure, but the galaxy will learn to forgive this if they manage to survive the invasion.
Harbinger never said they preserve synthetics, only organics. I believe it is also mentioned somewhere in ME3 that only the most influencial races are turned into the reapers while the rest of the sapient species are turned into husks. The entire idea is that they are not trying to preserve current sapient life, but future life, be it sentient or not. They care little for the sapient life at present, they care about the future of sapient life in the Milky Way.
That doesnt explain why they send the preserved life (in both Husk and Reaper form) to attack other lifeforms with the risk of getting killed, thus, failing the directive of protecting ALL life because you send them to fight and die. Even Sovereing Class Reapers are killed and they STILL send those to fight. If those contain civilizations inside their bodies, then it means that those are gone forever now. Reapers should have made pure mechanical beings to make the Reaping and let the ones filled with civilizations in Dark Space so they dont get killed.
To be honest, that sounds like a boring game where I have to continue to click on dialogue segments to continue a conversation, in fact it sounds like filler gameplay. I don't wanna have to sit down and keep telling my character to say something, and for the most part I found the auto dilogue suit the situation.
But when a game is about choice (and repercutions to those choices) we expect to carefully take our time with the information at hand before making difficult choices. That is what a ROLE Playing Game is about. That is why Planescape Torment and even the Original 2 Fallout games are the closest to being a Dungeon & Dragons RPG experience.
Choices you make have an effect throughout the whole story. For example, if you side with the Salarians and Wrex is alive, he will find out and you will be forced to kill him and loose suppourt of the Krogans. IF however Wreave is alive and Eve is dead, he will never know and you will continue having both Salarian and Krogan support. Onto the whole, "Why didn't they research this", while I can't say why not, I can propose the theory that in war, you take desperate measures. The Crucible was a desperate measure, it was supported by every previous race, so why not give it a shot.
I see you calling the Crucible a Deus ex Machina, I hate that this has been thrown around because everyone seems to have forgotten what a DEM really is. A Deus Ex Machina is an I win button that has not been hinted at at all throught the entire story and comes in at the very end of the game. This does not hold true for the Crucible. Firstly, the Crucible is introduced in the second mission of the game and we are told that it has the power to stop the Reapers. We now know at the start of the game that it is a weapon that has the ability to stop the reapers, but we don't know how it will stop the Reapers. In the end, we find out that it can Destroy, Control, or Synthesize, and these effects are not DEM either. I'll explain, the 3 games go by human psyche, in the sense of we hate, fear and want the unknown to be destroyed. Second stage, we learn a little about the unknown and begin wanting to control it, and finally, when we know everything there is to know we come to accept it. A more easy way to show this is with Vampires. At first we feared them, then we learnt more about them and made hunter characters like Van Helsing, and now, we have twilight, where everyone seems to want to be a vampire. How does this huge chunk fit with the ME series? Well, Reapers are the unknown in the first game, and we want Soverign destroyed, and in the end he is. Second game, we know more about the Reapers and the Illusive Man proposes the possibility of controlling them (in both ME2 and 3). By the third game the entire idea is unify the galaxy to save it. In it's most literal sense you are unifying organic and synthetic creatures in the synthesis ending.
What about the starchild? he is totally a DEM! Well, actually no, the starchild is the catalyst, we have known about the catalyst for some time and understand that we need it to make the Crucible work.
THERE IS NO DEUS EX MACHINA IN MASS EFFECT 3, there IS however a somewhat contrived ending that just fits well with how the series progressed.
Yes there are plot holes, but there will always be plot holes in a universe as big as the Mass Effect series.
I will have to make a graphic ilustrating what it trully means to have a branching narrative, but in the meantime i will have to deal with other minor stuff like:
Desperate measures shouldnt equal stupidity. We have NO info on what it does and we have to take the words of everyone else for it. If i were Shepard, i would first try to recall if the Prothean visions on ME1 and 2 had ANY mention of this machine that many cycles (and even the protheans) worked on. After all, if it is so important then why i havent hear of it, for all i know it could be another trap of The Reapers like The Citadel was on ME1 given how convenient it is that we found the solution to our problems. Also "Appeal To Tradition": "Everyone focused the resourses on this thing rather than developing weapons, we must follow their example too and fail like them"
You say that, because it was stablished early, it ISNT a DEM. You do realize that in the Greek/Atheans days (where DEM was invented) the Gods themselves were also stablished? the audience knew about their existance and how they could just, at the drop of a hat, fuck the journey up in any way they want, it was stablished in every work, but guess what? it was a DEM even by those days standards. The plot resolved itself because a god came to wrap everything up, even when they once antagonised the protagonist himself before, the reason of why he is giving him an end to his torment is because SHUT THE FUCK UP, I AM A GOD, YOU ARE A PUNY MORTAL WHO DOESNT KNOW SHIT ABOUT LIFE (AND WRITING), DONT QUESTION IT!
Same with the Crucible, it magically allowed us to FORCE the antagonist into surrendering AND giving us himself 3 elegant (but of a questionable source) choices. Why The Crusible does this? SHUT THE FUCK UP, I AM BEYOND COMPREHENTION (EVEN IF YOU BUILT ME), THIS IS WHAT I DO, DONT QUESTION IT!
Oh, the DEM can come in different flavors too, not just a "I WIN" only. The low EMS Destroy Ending DEM could be considered a "Diabolus ex Machina":
So the Catalyst is also the part we need to make The Crusible AND the collective conciousness of all Reapers. Gee, that doesnt sound suspicious at all, that the machine that nobody knew what it does, to the point that it may as well be a trap, NEEDS the antagonist himself to work.
...they dont fear something and THEN like later. People have already made up their minds, by the time they found this creature, what they want to do with it. They may change their opinions but it isnt a linear path with specific mentalities that humans have to follow.
And vampires, believe or not, represent lust for power AND fear of the unknown. They are the faster, strongest, smarters, and the more charming motherfuckers you will ever see (as made popular by Dracula while being NOT the first vampire ever written) and they are inmortal too, all while giving themselves to their hedonistic lifestyles for all eternity. They are, basically, everything that YOU want (hell, Dracula wasnt even harmed by sunlight).......except, they still dont have everything in the world. This is where their fear for religious symbols comes in, because they arent harm by them, they just fear the concept behind them.
Vampires are supposed to be the top of the top of the food chain, better than mortals in everyway, all strenghts none of the weaknesses, but the idea of God makes them feel like shit because it REMINDS THEM their place in this universe. They are not on top, God is on top controlling everything, even with inmortality they still need to feed like an animal, and their place in the universe is just as insignificant like other beings. They are NOTHING in the great scale of things even with all that power.
God is to them, what Cthulhu Mythos and Cosmic Horror is to us: We dont matter, we cant make a difference, we are miniscule in the uncaring universe, all you can do is just delude yourself with mortal pleasures until the truth comes right in front of you. Absolute and unbereable.
I never got any of Mass Effect 2's DLC, so I'm sorry I can't comment on it's effect and will have to take your word that it did make an impact in the game.
This will be short then: It doesnt matter what happened in LoTSB. Just like ME2, there was nothing there worth remembering by the time ME3 came out even if it has a better plot than ME2. The power of resolving conflicts and obtaining vital information is gone and wasted. Just like the choice you made to save/destroy the Collector base doesnt matter in ME3, if you destroyed it, it somehow survives and the Human Reaper too for Cerberus to do whatever he wants with it. No explanation on how the hell that thing survived the explotion of that magnitude.
Yes, bribery is wrong, and it happens, but that is why you should never base your opinion on something off of one thing. You can't say a certain food is bad after 1 mouthful. You can't say a certain music genre is bad after hearing 1 song.
I have also seen Angry Joe's top 10 gaming scandals, and I did see the ending as number 2, but he still found it as a good game. As for what you said about "what makes a game good", this is ENTIRELY subjective, and a good reviewer like Joe or Shamus Young will outline their reasons. It is then up to you to decide if these line up with the things you find important in a game. For example, Angry Joe HATES the new Dante and Vergil in DMC Devil May Cry, but that didn't stop him from giving the game a 7/10 for it's gameplay and what not. He gave a fair score to the game based off of it's gameplay and not off of it being part of a franchise.
If what makes something good is ENTIRELY subjective..........then why do these people have jobs? what is so important about their opinions that we, the unwashed masses, cannot do by ourselves? after all, everything is subjective, there is no profesional or objective way to know if something is good or bad. Every opinion counts because all of them are valid. Yet the opinion of those guys count more because of........what, exactly? for making less grammar mistakes than the common folk? because they make pretty images with the green screen? how do you become a profesional at something that is purely subjective? why i am not listening to my own brain since its opinion is just as valid?
I would say it's because of their recent games not being very good (Warfighter) and the majority of gamers seeming to loathe the company and refusing to buy a game simply because EA has it's brand on the game. What most people don't realise that is if EA dies, so does all of it's developers. There is currently a thread on the Escapist about things people have Boycotted, and there are several people on it saying things like, "I'm boycotting EA even though I really want a few of their games. I just can't handle EA and their practices". This is bullshit, if you want something, get it, don't deny yourself pleasure because you don't like the person who published it. It's almost like saying, "I don't watch Universal Studios films because I don't like the people who work at Universal even though I like their movies". EA is getting more hate than they deserve and this is effecting their sales figures.
But you said that gamers are like children BECAUSE they do what the like without thinking. Boycotting is just a choice they take into admitting that somethings have to be sacrificed in order to let EA crumble. A more valid concern would be that your beloved developers would starve if EA dies, but i am sure that even the developers would notice that adopting EA practices will make less money in the long run AND it prevents them from doing what they want because EA will make sure that the game does what it must to SELL not to ENGAGE or inspire like the author wanted.
The video of "The Tale of 2 Companies" ilustrated well that Bioware was fine back when they were 3 people with a hundred grans, and today, 3 people with hundreds of grans can succeed too in making something of quality. So what IS Bioware winning by aligning with EA?
Let's play Vorlon and say: "Who is Bioware? And what do they want?"
I don't think that they're the worst ever. However, I am shocked at the sheer amount of vitriol aimed at DMC, particularly when it's critical reception has been relatively warm. Fuck, how terrible can a game be if the hardest to please critics give it a recommendation (cough*Yahtzee*cough)? The lowest critic review I've seen was the equivalent of a 6 or 7 out of 10, which is still a good rating. Did they release two versions of the game? One that apparently the critics and I have played and one that is full of fail that all these haters played.
It's a shame that an incredibly competent (and, in my opinion, fun) game is being railroaded.
Or even Yahtzee who admitted he can't even do pause combos and just button mashes and is known to hate anything Japanese? Or the other reviews that do nothing but tear it apart and give it a 9/10 for BS reasons? Let me just remind you that Dragon Age II also was praised by critics.
When the old DMC fans voiced their displeasure they are immediately dismissed with "it's just the hair" even when pointing out the butchered gameplay or other flaws. Not to mention Tameem's act of pissing on the fans at every opportunity and over glorifying his game. DmC is a piss easy button masher instead of a challenging stylish hack em up and critics hate hard games. If it's really as good as the reviewers say why are there so many haters and so little sales?
Because it...was? Not to your taste maybe, but when there's a large group of people so invested in a franchise they make this amount of noise, it's hard to easily brush the franchise aside and say "meh."
I've stopped caring about DmC, but it pisses me off when people attack the franchise just because it's in the public eye.
I'm sorry that this game isn't quite the familiar title it should be, but I think people are getting way too harsh on Ninja Theory for trying something a little different. Capcom hired them to do it. They didn't use some legal loophole or hostile negotiations to steal the license and capitalize on the name with lukewarm crap. They put in some effort and realized while doing it that they couldn't live up to the expectations without just making Devil May Cry 3 in a new suit. I think they did a good job with what they had to work with, and in this age of SequelMania you've got something better than two new weapons and a graphical brush-up. I'M LOOKING AT YOU, GEARBOX!!!! GET OUT OF THE SHALLOW END!!!!
I almost wish there were an IP swap every three years to make big name developers actually try something new in their titles. Maybe they'd actually care about making games fun, fresh, entertaining and compelling again. If someone makes Halo 5 and it sucks, you'd just have to wait for Halo 6 to come out from the original developers and play a bunch of other new creative titles to fill the time. How do you possibly lose?
And it seems it didn't sell well enough... And DmC is not even one month out, lets wait for the full numbers that also include the PC sales (because it is a damn good port and by far the superior version of this game).
Well, I have yet to come to the 'heavily infested floor' on the higher difficulty, it just sprung out for me that the first levels on Son of Sparda has way more enemies and more variety because you already have all your stuph.
It is Capcom we are talking about, their sales expectations are always ridicolous. So far DmC is doing worse than DMC4 did in the same timespan.
I can't really find any mentions of DMC4 doing bad anywhere, just the opposite: http://web.archive.org/web/20080228012611/http://ir.capcom.co.jp/english/news/html/e080220.html
Motohide Eshiro: "Well, taking Devil May Cry 4 as an example, including the PC versions we sold 2.7 million of that particular game, but we looked at the market and saw that there were other action games selling four million, five million, all these copies.
One of our goals for this game is to create something new and fresh that keeps the old fans but also catches new people, so that we can increase our overall appeal, our sales and our audience."
It can be discussed if over 2 mil are 'not enough' or how they actually failed to reach their said goal with DmC (yes, they got new audience [people like me who didn't like the previous games or had next to no experience] but on the cost of a big chunk of the old audience). Can. I'm neither in the mood or have the time to do so.
Motohide Eshiro: "Well, taking Devil May Cry 4 as an example, including the PC versions we sold 2.7 million of that particular game, but we looked at the market and saw that there were other action games selling four million, five million, all these copies.
One of our goals for this game is to create something new and fresh that keeps the old fans but also catches new people, so that we can increase our overall appeal, our sales and our audience."
It can be discussed if over 2 mil are 'not enough' or how they actually failed to reach their said goal with DmC (yes, they got new audience [people like me who didn't like the previous games or had next to no experience] but on the cost of a big chunk of the old audience). Can. I'm neither in the mood or have the time to do so.
I have one simple question: If the reboot uses nothing of the original IP except in name only, then why didnt they use an original IP instead of buying that one?
... They did not buy the IP. By any chances they were most probably told by the IP holder (Capcom) to make a DmC game. Because a reboot was needed in their eyes (4 did not sell well and was already pretty much 'lets do everything twice').
Kat:"Now you'll have to go through the five stories of hell." Dante gets into an elevator, elevator music starts... roughly 15 seconds go by "She was right, this is hell.").
So if it sold well, why leap to the conclusion of a reboot or that the DMC universe may not be appealing anymore? wasnt Nero created to appeal to a broad audience already?
I don't think that they're the worst ever. However, I am shocked at the sheer amount of vitriol aimed at DMC, particularly when it's critical reception has been relatively warm. Fuck, how terrible can a game be if the hardest to please critics give it a recommendation (cough*Yahtzee*cough)? The lowest critic review I've seen was the equivalent of a 6 or 7 out of 10, which is still a good rating. Did they release two versions of the game? One that apparently the critics and I have played and one that is full of fail that all these haters played.
It's a shame that an incredibly competent (and, in my opinion, fun) game is being railroaded.
Or even Yahtzee who admitted he can't even do pause combos and just button mashes and is known to hate anything Japanese? Or the other reviews that do nothing but tear it apart and give it a 9/10 for BS reasons? Let me just remind you that Dragon Age II also was praised by critics.
When the old DMC fans voiced their displeasure they are immediately dismissed with "it's just the hair" even when pointing out the butchered gameplay or other flaws. Not to mention Tameem's act of pissing on the fans at every opportunity and over glorifying his game. DmC is a piss easy button masher instead of a challenging stylish hack em up and critics hate hard games. If it's really as good as the reviewers say why are there so many haters and so little sales?
How can you call it cherry picking when you don't care enough about the game to even read reviews? Please show me a review that doesn't mention the fans in any way. Or if you don't know then stop talking about things you're clueless about. Hell, there are two examples of hate against the fans in the OP (although they are stupid I like how one person doing something stupid = entire fanbase), two I posted and several others Polite Sage posted, yup totally cherry picking.
Edit: oh look Iapan also posted another article about it, there must be a cherry festival with how common it is.
I don't think that they're the worst ever. However, I am shocked at the sheer amount of vitriol aimed at DMC, particularly when it's critical reception has been relatively warm. Fuck, how terrible can a game be if the hardest to please critics give it a recommendation (cough*Yahtzee*cough)? The lowest critic review I've seen was the equivalent of a 6 or 7 out of 10, which is still a good rating. Did they release two versions of the game? One that apparently the critics and I have played and one that is full of fail that all these haters played.
It's a shame that an incredibly competent (and, in my opinion, fun) game is being railroaded.
Or even Yahtzee who admitted he can't even do pause combos and just button mashes and is known to hate anything Japanese? Or the other reviews that do nothing but tear it apart and give it a 9/10 for BS reasons? Let me just remind you that Dragon Age II also was praised by critics.
When the old DMC fans voiced their displeasure they are immediately dismissed with "it's just the hair" even when pointing out the butchered gameplay or other flaws. Not to mention Tameem's act of pissing on the fans at every opportunity and over glorifying his game. DmC is a piss easy button masher instead of a challenging stylish hack em up and critics hate hard games. If it's really as good as the reviewers say why are there so many haters and so little sales?
How can you call it cherry picking when you don't care enough about the game to even read reviews? Please show me a review that doesn't mention the fans in any way. Or if you don't know then stop talking about things you're clueless about. Hell, there are two examples of hate against the fans in the OP (although they are stupid I like how one person doing something stupid = entire fanbase), two I posted and several others Polite Sage posted, yup totally cherry picking.
90% percent of the reviews(may or may not be a exaggeration) insult the fanbase and make mention of white hair and defend DmC.
Why in the hell are reviewers defending the game? It's not their damn job to do that.
It's only to tell us if a game is good or bad and most of the reviews go in no detail at all on flaws and comparisons that must be made. Why bother making a new product when it's inferior to the old one and try selling it as superior.
That's just asking for your company to die, whats next coca cola classic dante?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
