Page 5 of 7 [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

El-ahrairah
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 14

23 Mar 2012, 12:15 am

Verdandi wrote:
I don't remember the company, but someone on the livejournal Mass Effect community said that their company had been purchased by EA and told they would be given the "Bioware treatment," which meant "full creative freedom."


I've known of many game companies that were purchased and told they would be able to keep their creative freedom. It didn't last.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

23 Mar 2012, 3:22 am

El-ahrairah wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
I don't remember the company, but someone on the livejournal Mass Effect community said that their company had been purchased by EA and told they would be given the "Bioware treatment," which meant "full creative freedom."


I've known of many game companies that were purchased and told they would be able to keep their creative freedom. It didn't last.


EA is not as bad as it used to be though. I think Bioware still has creative freedom.



Sickpuppies124
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 121
Location: Cloudsdale, Equestria

23 Mar 2012, 8:25 am

EA has been pretty merciful on Battlefield and Mass Effect IMO, well until the ending of ME3 that is.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

23 Mar 2012, 10:48 am

El-ahrairah wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
I don't remember the company, but someone on the livejournal Mass Effect community said that their company had been purchased by EA and told they would be given the "Bioware treatment," which meant "full creative freedom."


I've known of many game companies that were purchased and told they would be able to keep their creative freedom. It didn't last.


Seriously, I think y'all are reaching to find an explanation that is something other than "Bioware employees consciously chose this course." Odds are, Bioware employees chose this course. It is the simplest, most parsimonious explanation. EA likely had nothing to do with the ending of ME3. If anything, they'd push Bioware to do the opposite: End the game in such a manner as to make infinite sequels plausible.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

23 Mar 2012, 2:27 pm

Verdandi wrote:
El-ahrairah wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
I don't remember the company, but someone on the livejournal Mass Effect community said that their company had been purchased by EA and told they would be given the "Bioware treatment," which meant "full creative freedom."


I've known of many game companies that were purchased and told they would be able to keep their creative freedom. It didn't last.


Seriously, I think y'all are reaching to find an explanation that is something other than "Bioware employees consciously chose this course." Odds are, Bioware employees chose this course. It is the simplest, most parsimonious explanation. EA likely had nothing to do with the ending of ME3. If anything, they'd push Bioware to do the opposite: End the game in such a manner as to make infinite sequels plausible.


It's actually worse if the Bioware devs chose to end it this way, because at least if it was EA calling the shots we can respect the devs.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

23 Mar 2012, 2:34 pm

TM wrote:
It's actually worse if the Bioware devs chose to end it this way, because at least if it was EA calling the shots we can respect the devs.


I'm not making any value judgments, just - EA pushing Bioware to "torch the setting and run" makes no logical sense.

My respect for the devs has nothing to do with the ending. I think as far as the ending goes, they made a huge mistake. Hopefully they won't do it again.



Narfibald
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 104
Location: San Antonio, TX

23 Mar 2012, 11:09 pm

Honestly, I still don't get why everyone hates the ending. I mean, was it a super fantastic ending? No. But I don't think it was that terrible.


_________________
I have no purpose, I make them.

--Narfibald Narfchester von Narfington
--Lord of Castle Narfenstein
--Ruler of the Narfshire
--Keeper of the Tome of Narf
--Aspergian in Good Standing


El-ahrairah
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 14

24 Mar 2012, 1:00 am

Narfibald wrote:
Honestly, I still don't get why everyone hates the ending. I mean, was it a super fantastic ending? No. But I don't think it was that terrible.


Please explain how organics and synthetics become more like one another, using the established technology in the ME universe.



CornerPuzzlePieces
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 308
Location: B.C Canada

24 Mar 2012, 6:12 am

Endings suck, see rant in poll thread for me3.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

24 Mar 2012, 7:32 am

El-ahrairah wrote:
Please explain how organics and synthetics become more like one another, using the established technology in the ME universe.

What ever created the Reapers obviously knew a lot about the blending of organics and synthetics, the process involved very advanced technology, though according to them they could not manage it. But generations of different cycles worked on creating the crucible, and no one society could figure it out, to ask for a set precident is a bit rediculous in how it was created in universe and it's delivery was required on the relays created by the Reaper's creators, which actually overloaded them.

As we saw in ME3, geth already took a step towards being like organics, AI taking on characteristics of organics, Saren becoming like a synthetic in the first game, Asari able to conect minds and nervous systems of organics similar to synthetics, Salarian and Drell haveing perfect memory, with Drell even able to relive memories, much similar to how a a synthetic may review past data. Do you think that these traits could not be used make each side closer to each other.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Narfibald
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 104
Location: San Antonio, TX

24 Mar 2012, 1:33 pm

Honestly, when Liara merged minds with Shepard for a last intimate moment right before the ending had me so choked up, I don't think they could've done anything to ruin it for me after that. To me, this series goes down as one of the greatest I've played simply because Bioware did an amazing job on getting me emotionally invested in the characters with this one. Can't say the same for DA: 0 though.


_________________
I have no purpose, I make them.

--Narfibald Narfchester von Narfington
--Lord of Castle Narfenstein
--Ruler of the Narfshire
--Keeper of the Tome of Narf
--Aspergian in Good Standing


DanRaccoon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 871
Location: England

26 Mar 2012, 9:13 am

Laz wrote:
Well I actually managed to complete this game last night

Yeah, can see why people are ripping into this ending, it kinda reminds me of that scene with the Architect in Matrix Reloaded when Neo has to make a choice between saving trinity or returning to the source. And well look how the ending of that trilogy turned out :P


Difference between the matrix revolutions ending and ME3 ending is that you could see the effort in the Matrix ending.


_________________
Please, if you are a female don't PM, IM or contact me in anyway. This isn't a joke, I've just simply had enough of all of you.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DanRaccoon


Laz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,540
Location: Dave's Toilet

26 Mar 2012, 2:12 pm

Ah touche'


_________________
"Tall people can be recognized by three things: generosity in the design, humanity in the execution and moderation in success"


DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

26 Mar 2012, 4:08 pm

My problem with the ME3 ending was that the little ghost kid baldly stated that none of the effort you put into brokering peace between the quarians and the geth meant anything, that all your struggles over the past three games added up to precisely bupkiss, because it declared in its infinite wisdom that synthetics would always rebel against organics. War was always inevitable, no matter what.

The basic problem, I think is that Bioware's writers are (or at least were) biased against AIs. They simply didn't seem able to conceive of an ending in which Shepard could send the Reapers away without destroying everything. Either you destroy the Reapers, and for some reason all advanced technology in the galaxy, or you control the Reapers and send them away, which for inadequately-explained reasons destroys all the mass relays and makes the Normandy crash on some primitive world, or you just let the Cycles continue. I wanted an ending in which you could point out that the Catalyst's reasoning was flawed, and that your own uniting of the geth and quarians was an example of that flaw. If bringing that about requires a Heroic Sacrifice from Shepard, that's fine. In fact, I think I'd prefer that. As it is, though, everything that's happened, everything you've fought for, even Shepard's own death in the end, all means nothing. And that really ticks me off.


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

26 Mar 2012, 5:51 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:
They simply didn't seem able to conceive of an ending in which Shepard could send the Reapers away without destroying everything. Either you destroy the Reapers, and for some reason all advanced technology in the galaxy, or you control the Reapers and send them away, which for inadequately-explained reasons destroys all the mass relays and makes the Normandy crash on some primitive world, or you just let the Cycles continue. I wanted an ending in which you could point out that the Catalyst's reasoning was flawed, and that your own uniting of the geth and quarians was an example of that flaw. If bringing that about requires a Heroic Sacrifice from Shepard, that's fine. In fact, I think I'd prefer that. As it is, though, everything that's happened, everything you've fought for, even Shepard's own death in the end, all means nothing. And that really ticks me off.

Well there was the middle option, but what even gives all the races the right to the mass relays, they were created for the sole reason to force the advanced races to avoid creating their own fast travel devices, so that they would be relying on a system that would ultimatly lead them to either be assimilated, or destroyed. Remember the geth talking about the importance of making their own way, that the journey is as important as the destination, even though it might not look like it, the mass relays are loss of freedom, Liara's relative had before stated that she thought that they should create their own relays, but their leaders were just too complacent.

And personally I think that the hologram thing was right, eventually the geth and Quarians would fight again, it might have happened one thousand years later, but it was going to happen, it is organics desire for conflict, and a synthetuc own desire, a faction was already created to join the Reapers.

And about the Normandy running away, and the crash, everyone is thinking that it is impossible, has anyone thought that it is because it did not happen, the segment there was purelysymbolic, it ws to show that there was uncertanty about the change, the change was catastrophic, and their current system fell. But from the wreckage everyone emerged, and looking towards the future they were able to move forward, with synthetics and organics able to go together.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Narfibald
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 104
Location: San Antonio, TX

26 Mar 2012, 10:41 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:
My problem with the ME3 ending was that the little ghost kid baldly stated that none of the effort you put into brokering peace between the quarians and the geth meant anything, that all your struggles over the past three games added up to precisely bupkiss, because it declared in its infinite wisdom that synthetics would always rebel against organics. War was always inevitable, no matter what.


Exactly, its how things are. No matter how hard you try, conflict is inevitable. Hell, World War 1 was called the war to end all wars. And then we had world war 2, and then the cold war (which I guess wasn't an actual war), etc. The point is, the problems of today aren't so much solved as they are replaced with the problems of tomorrow.


_________________
I have no purpose, I make them.

--Narfibald Narfchester von Narfington
--Lord of Castle Narfenstein
--Ruler of the Narfshire
--Keeper of the Tome of Narf
--Aspergian in Good Standing