Displaying 101–120 of 329
i agree with Nikole
shameful shameful, is it me or has most people who call them self gaming journalist BOOTLICKERS
I can understand why people are so upset with the ending of the game, BioWare did advertise that there would be 16 different endings and there are only 3. If they had put out that the others were to be released in a DLC content upon release of the game or a week after then people would not have been so mad. They consumers feel lied to and that I can understand, because when the consumers can't trust the company they get their products from they don't anymore. There were many loopholes and unanswered questions in the end of the game to what happend to the rest of the known galaxy and the other thing that shows they fell short on the ending and all who have played the game can agree on this. The ending with the grandfather talking to his grandson at the end about the Shepard as if he was a legend missed the mark. Remember that Liara made a data node or file about everything including Shepard and it was left on the Normandy when it crash, so he should not be a legend but fact. that proves to me that they rushed the ending and it was not what it was supposed to be.
For me, the ending of ME3 turned a great game into the end of around 10 years of being a fan of the company. BioWare story is usually great, but the ending just was not up to par. It was the kind of quality I'd have expected from a child to be blunt. It wasn't just the bad ending that was a tipping point however. It was the fact that in five minutes, one of the major selling points of the series was obliterated. They promised something beyond an "A, B, or C" ending. A direct dev quote was something like 16 endings. Instead we got A, B, or C. Dragon Age 2 and SWTOR made me began questioning the integrity of BioWare. Was this amazing and wonderfully honest company losing the best aspects of it? The fact that we could TRUST them. With a final hammer blow, they proved that as they stand now, they are as dishonest as a majority of the industry. Do they have a right to write what they want? Sure they do, but when you promise something for around 5 years, even up until as late as a month before release and don't deliver? I'm sorry, but I have trouble seeing why someone shouldn't be angry. A bad ending is terrible, but to backstab all their customers by going back on almost everything they ever said about the series is just too much.
This makes me sad to say that I feel like the guy in the middle actually didn't play the other 2 games. Ok you want the destroy ending and you were ok with that. Not everyone is ok with destroying technology and knowing what the result of there actions were, like how all the ships in space got along afterwards or how our quarian friends which literally all lived on the Flotilla Fleet in space most likely were just annihilated.I said this in a reply post but the guy was like "For a game to be great they need to take risks and swing for the fences." Now if you truly believe thats what Bioware or EA did here I don't think you actually beat the game. It's not that they took such a huge risk and the backlash of fan hate is what happened its that they did the exact opposite. Swinging for the fences would of been 16 completely different endings based on your choices. What Bioware did using a baseball analogy was bunt. They did the bare minimum to try to get on base and instead got tagged out losing the game. They didn't take the homerun risk they took the hopefully the guy on third will make it home in time risk. They banked on the fact that the the Journey and gameplay was good enough to make the pile of rachni dung ending seem miniscule and not ruin the game so that no matter what, people have no reason to ever play the series again knowing what the ending is for them despite doing every side mission to perfection and getting the exact same lightshow ending.
I wish Sessler would've made an appearance and slammed Nikole he seems to share Stephens philosophy but can just articulate more clearly. I personally wasn't in love with the ending but I would be horrified to see it revised based on consumer grumblings. Mass Effect 3 itself is a product of what happens when publishers try and broaden the consumer base as large as possible. The ratio of RPG vs Shooter of the Mass Effect series began with a heavy lean towards RPG. But as the installations progressed, more and more of the highest grossing game mechanics were plugged in. In Mass Effect 2 the emphasis swayed heavily towards Shooter and cover based at that (Gears of War 2) and 3 takes this pattern further by streamlining the RPG elements even more to the point where they resemble "perks" more than anything else and plugged in a mutliplayer aspect (MW3). Imagine how much more amazing the series as a whole would've been if these decisions weren't made and the series retained the true originality of ME1 instead of incorperating the "it" mechanic du jour. This way the progression from sequel to sequel would perfect the issues that were apparent in ME1 and innovate from there.
The ending is really explained, and clarified to the gamers who played the trilogy. mainly the ones who focused on the reaper indoctrination segments of the games. People not being themselves, reapers in the peoples heads. This idea strongly comes to play in the ending scene of Shepard destroying the reapers, notice that extra tid-bit clip that showed Shepard breathing, look at his surroundings. There isn't any technology around him, nothing shinny. Those are rocks from the buildings and the road he was running on before the game jumped you into the station. Earlier before the cut scene when Shepard was talking to the ghost kid that people where complaining about, was just a image the reapers took from his mind. Someone heart wrenching on Shepard, that gave the reaper an identity that he could follow. If you looked at the cut scene of what ever choice you made, and didn't look at Shepard but the kid, you see the delay time of when he leaves before Shepard destroys himself in some way. That kid really was testing him to make a choice and see even with Shepard's free will, would you make such a decision that defined your existence. Also the station Shepard was on had no windows. He was in space, no air was in his lungs. The reapers actually gave Shepard a chance to show them if what they are doing should change or stop. No matter what the reapers new the system was broken, and saw Shepard for who he was. They put the galaxy in his hands, told him to make the choice, and listened. All this happened in Shepard's head. the rest of the cut scene with the citadel firing, was the result of his decision. majority of the people who complained about the ending did not see this to any extent. I hope this made a better view at why the game ending was good, and opened the eye's of viewers that thought of it as bad. The ending really was a perfect fit.
i, respectfully, disagree with her, regarding video games are suppose to be made for broad audiences. and i think the other 2 dudes were very well spoken regarding that is how the things we enjoy and appreciate come to be, is by imagination and sometimes making mistakes. i think ultimately its alright to be disappointed, and its alright to express it but express it with respect because a lot of hard working minds worked very hard, they are people like you and i. yeah i am not happy about hearing how the ending came out, as a fan, but i will respect their choices. i want to inspire more people to push and create and not limit themselves to "what sells". its the only way we will find that new thing again
The ending was indoctrination. It was the ultimate test for shepard, to either do what the Reapers wanted (the control reapers option, just like the illusive man wanted) , or break the indoctrination (kill synthetics), which the child doesnt want you to do. BTW, how can the child from your memories appear as an AI, unless that AI is already in your head to know about the child? Shepard alive and in London rubble at the end proves he never actually was on the citadel. There are still plot holes, but that is the most concise theory I've seen/heard.
People really came out of the wood work for this feedback. over 200 comments in a day!
I view the ending, not as black/white (what we saw actually happening), and more the struggle of shepard vs reaper's indoctrination. The A.I. kid is a flashback to the kid blowing up. How does the catalyst know this unless its already in Shepard's head? The choices are not actual choices but metaphors. To do the Reaper's bidding (controlling the reapers, which is what illusive man wanted to do, and the AI wanted you to do, and the Illusive man was indoctrinated. The destroy technology, which the kid strongly encourages you not to do, is breaking away from indoctrination, allowing the catalyst to destroy the reapers. The ending of that also shows shepard alive in London rubble, he never left London.
I still haven't played the franchise, so feel free to dismiss my opinion (which has received its fair share of thumbs down) but I agree with Stephen on all fronts. Regardless of your feeling about the ending, I don't think developers should change their game or cater to fans. It's a slippery slope. If developers start trying to cater to everybody and compromising their vision, all games eventually just become a boring gray blob. Everything strives to be Call of Duty. I don't play Call of Duty and I don't want to. Artistic quality is lost and everything becomes predictable. The hero always wins, the guy gets the girl, and everyone is happy.Rayman Origins was my favorite game last year. It was an old-school, creativity-oozing, 2D platformer that sold like crap. I felt like it was made specifically for me. In a world where developers cater to the popular opinion and cave into pressure, Rayman Origins probably never exists. In a world like that I lose interest in gaming and probably find a new hobby.
I would really like to see someone examine this issue not from the perspective of Mass Effect being a typical video game, but rather as Mass Effect as a platform for creating your own story. Because, to me, that's what it is. You are writing the story of Commander Shepard and his crew through your actions in the game. That is my only real problem with the ending. The ending was beautiful in what it was trying to do, but it failed in terms of allowing me to finish MY story of Commander Shepard. Give me the option to fail and doom the entire galaxy. Give me the option to save everything including myself and go live with Traynor in a big house with a white picket fence and 2.5 kids. Give me the option to sacrifice myself (or a friend/lover!) for the greater good of the galaxy. Give me the option to fail and turn tail and run just to save myself. That's the point of Mass Effect. That's what made Mass Effect 1 and 2 such great games.
It's glaringly obvious who in the show actually had an investment in the series; Nikole looked to be almost in physical pain at a few points during the show, and frankly I agree with her almost completely. I did half a dozen playthroughs each of ME1 and 2, read the books, I've been waiting to find out what finally happens for what feels like decades now, and what we're ultimately handed is a contrived, hollow pile of inexplicable garbage with a near deus ex machina feel (the Latin phrase, not the game) that completely trivializes your each and every action over the course of the entire series. To say that I'm disappointed would be a profound understatement. It effectively ruined the series for me. The sense of futility it instilled in me is such that I can't even bring myself to finish my other characters. What's the point? It speaks volumes about how poor the ending was when I can't even rouse myself to play through the rest of what was otherwise an amazing game. I feel like my faith in Bioware has been taken out back and shot repeatedly in the head, after this and DA2. The developer had nearly deified itself after KotOR, DA:O, NWN, and ME1 and 2. What happened?
About the score system, I believe that there should be a separation of the weighting between new games and sequels. Games that are either new IP or take old IPs into new genres should be more heavily weighted towards "professional" reviewers. Old IPs should take into account their consumers because the playerbase will continue to support the old game if they like it; if they hate, then it's the developers fault for not appeasing their supporters. Though, I also would have to say that I support Totalbiscuit's idea that the score system should be thrown out the window. If you look at how games are scored, they have been the same basicly 4 point categories: 5/5, 10/10, 100-99.9, 90+/100,Excellent a game everyone must play; 4/5, 99.8, (8-9)/10,98, (80-89)/100, A game that many people would like, not perfect but good. 3/5, 97, 7/10, (70-79)/100, Just an average game; and anything lower is a bad game, broken, very buggy, not for anyone. The system is highly inflated and until it is somewhat remedied, I don't see it being anything but a way for publishers to get more free advertisements.
Posted: March 4, 2013
9,753 Views | 02:24
Posted: December 5, 2012
27,925 Views | 02:09
7,079 Views | 01:36
Posted: December 4, 2012
14,847 Views | 03:15
Posted: November 26, 2012
4,657 Views | 01:42
© 2012 G4 Media, LLC. All rights reserved.