Real life indeed is tragic... exactly why the majority of people don't want that shit in their entertainment.
fail. you fail so hard it's just mind blowing. so by your logic, how in the world could a heavy metal album full of themes about physical, emotional and sexual abuse go platinum? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korn_(album)#Reception. how did a movie like the green mile, with the ending it had, rank #2 at the box office? or how about the movie i referred to earlier, the grey. that's not a happy ending and was #1 its opening weekend. nobody went to that looking for comedic relief.
As for DEEP, that's just an excuse to not have to fabricate an internally consistent story and introduce needless complexity while letting the audience try to paper over the holes.
are you high?
straw man #2:
(Want to bet the epilogue just concentrates on the rest of the crew and leaves the clusterfuck near Earth without closure?)
yeah let's waste time arguing about something that hasn't been released yet, as if whatever bullshit you're assuming is actually true. i have no trouble believing you didn't under the matrix either. i feel sorry for you. ps, i have a straw man for you. nobody gives a fuck about ttgl.
i know. that's the problem, your attitude and those who share it. what you have the right to (your opinion) and what you think you have the right to (forcing a creator to create what you want) are totally different. buying the game is not a contract to tell the game writer what the story should be. you're not commissioning the work under your direction. if we all the had the right to make someone change their creation because we didn't like it, that person would never create another thing because that person would spend the rest of their natural (and probably substantially shorter) life trying please everyone. i'm so glad bioware has the spine to stand up to the whiners. an appreciative fan will say, "i didn't like it. i might not buy your next game based on this." an unappreciative gamer will say, "i didn't like it, and i want you to change it or i definitely won't buy your next game." while the whiners say, "i didn't like it and the world is subject to how i feel so i'm entitled to a different ending and i demand you appease me. here's my gimme-gimme list." which one are you?
Best Buy may not be Shangri La, but in many rural and semi-rural parts of the U.S., it's the nearest and best place to actually find a wide selection of electronics.
Fire the disinterested teenagers.
in many rural and semi-rural parts of the US, it's the nearest and best place to find a job. those areas are rife with the disinterested teenager crowd.
in the destroy ending, not all organic races are doomed, just some. the price of getting rid of the reapers was the sacrifice of a lot of organic races. life's tough.
as for shepard's survival, first they explained that he was already more than human after the illusive man resurrected him. second, he only shows signs of life in the rubble in the control ending. he kind of has to survive, or the whole "control" thing didn't work out. the illusive man was a full blown cyborg after indoctrination. pretty reasonable to assume here that shepard is also part machine.
with the geth after synthesis, they just recently acquired free will as an ability, and now we can assume that whatever it is we think is so great about being "alive" is also granted to the geth.
now look here starting at 20:55 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmXGAtjv5aQ. it's my opinion EDI's posture and movement were meant to seem more human (organic) as well. if that's what happened to joker, i think that's also what happened to shepard, probably seconds before he was obliterated by the energy stream he jumped into.
3 choices is more than the 2 (paragon or renegade) they gave you in any other scene. 1/3 of the endings was you being duped into being indoctrinated like the illusive man was. 1/3 of the endings was about you merging all organic and synthetic life together - no reapers, no humans, just cyborgs. 1/3 of the endings was about you destroying the reapers at the cost of most of organic life. the deus ex machina was no such thing, just the last boss. you could defeat it with a choice, instead of shooting the glowing weak spot like most games.
buying a game does not create a contractual obligation on the part of the developer to make you like it.
shepard's fate isn't written one way. in one ending he's (just) a martyr, in another he's alive and indoctrinated, in another he's the human "catalyst" for a new cyborg race, and in another he's failed completely. and there was no explicit claim that every gamer's ending would be different from everyone else's (forgetting the fact that that's impossible anyway). people interpreted it that way, and sadly signing your name on your credit card receipt is not the same as a single employee signing his interview as a contract. artistic freedom absolutely does give you the right to do whatever the fuck you want. michael bay's teenage alien ninja turtles is proof of that.
no, what i'm saying is there's a difference between saying "your game sucks and i want a different ending" (which, the last part i simply think is an incredibly stupid and naive thing to ask for) and saying "your game sucks so now you owe me." it's obvious if you're complaining about the game's ending that you would have liked a different one. just saying the game sucks will suffice, if that's the only message you're getting across. anything more is exactly like a demand, which is a manifestation of entitlement. you don't demand things you don't think you're entitled to. nobody was politely asking for a new ending, it's pretty much all been demands. and i still believe the correct answer to the polite request is no.
a different scenario is where you pay for something that is actually custom for you (hint: the choice system in the game does not make the game custom to you, despite any illusion that you perceive). say you get your car painted and they do the wrong color. you can voice your opinion that the color sucks, but you'd also have the right to demand that the work be redone. consuming a video game is not even remotely close to having your car painted in terms of what is intended solely for you. the crux of the argument against making new endings is that it will ruin the endings for other people who were happy with the way it went. the endings really were open ended enough for anyone to take from it what they wanted to be the long term outcome of each ending offered.
in my analogy, it's like asking that not only do you want your blue ford mustang painted red, but everyone's blue ford mustang painted red, and fuck everyone else's opinion of their car color because it's just you that isn't happy, for your own reasons. let's say, for the sake of argument that you couldn't paint your own car, just like consumers can't edit the code of the game -- if ford promised 9 different colors of mustangs, and they turned out to be 3 different shades of 3 different colors, they wouldn't actually be wrong. you could get pissed and voice your displeasure saying you only see 3 colors, but you'd be out of line to demand they take away hunter green for purple. a billion other people want their own shade swapped out for their own color. no concensus, no standard. get it? bioware did the equivalent of giving you 3 different shades of 3 different colors. there were at least 2 different ways to interpret what the consequences were for each ending, plus what happens in each ending if you didn't get enough war assets collected. people want a wildly different outcome for whether or not miranda died or wrex died or whether you fucked jack, and that's just asinine. if you choose the destroy ending you get to see the squad mates you chose saved. if you chose the synthesis ending you saw joker and EDI synthesized. control ending has squad mates saved like the destroy ending, except shepard is now a reaper instead of a martyr. that's a big diff.
is it time again already? seems like only 6 months ago i was reading a cute "dumbest IT helpdesk problems EVAR!!" post. maybe it was a different site. looks like someone's in between projects. or jobs.
you DO NOT have a RIGHT to DICTATE to the game developer how to make their games. end of story. please, let them know in your loudest voice how much you hated it. but they don't owe you a change. you are NOT entitled.
you start by saying:
Actually, we do.
and close by saying:
So while I cannot dictate how they make their game, I *can* complain that they did not keep their word and deliver what they promised.
the "if you care to know as much as you care to ask" version:
it's obvious. the endings are so open ended they're left up to interpretation, while still being pretty explicit about what the consequences are. the peace between quarian and geth was no different than the krogan/turian alliance. it was about getting more war assets, basically, which by itself drastically alters things in the end. if you don't make the war asset quota the entire earth is razed and the normandy doesn't survive its escape through the relay.
synthesis ending:
saving the geth wasn't a waste per se, anymore than saving earth or other species, if the synthesis ending is chosen. the idea with that ending is to stop the 50k year cycle. if you get the war asset quota and choose synthesis you get a bonus ending scene very similar to the vague ending of The Grey starring liam neeson. in a split second post-credits scene of that movie you get a glimpse of liam neeson's head resting on the body of the alpha wolf he lunged at just prior to the credits. is he alive? was he mortally wounded? the wolf appears to be breathing, but is it also mortally wounded? even if neeson's character did survive, what about the remaining wolves in the pack? wasn't he getting close to civilization at the end? all kinds of endings can be imagined, but it's up to you to decide. same with these ME3 endings. i think it would have been neat to somehow tie in the geth free will thing with the DNA synthesis but the ways things went in other choices i also think it would have been a bit convoluted to force that connection. in the synthesis ending, shepard shows signs of life, and joker and EDI show signs of being synthesized.
control ending:
in this ending, you choose the indoctrination that the illusive man also chose. there is no "deux ex machina" here, the catalyst kid is simply the reaper leader (i'd be kinda disappointed if i didn't meet him -- it's like neo meeting the architect). the catalyst kid laughs at you as you allow yourself to become indoctrinated. the first appearance of the kid in the beginning sort of implies (in hindsight) that the reapers were attempting to indoctrinate him. the kid also implies that indoctrination is necessary to control the reapers -- who themselves replace organic life while archiving their evolutionary accomplishments and waiting for the next cycle. with shepard's position as potential messiah, he's the best candidate for this control, hence why he's spared and worth the efforts of indoctrination. the geth had acquired free will, so they had to be destroyed in a "control" ending. the synthetics wanted control.
destroy ending:
here you destroy all reapers including the catalyst. in the control ending the kid is still there for his victory laugh but in this ending he's gone. catalyst/reapers dead. as in dead, dead. the reapers on earth don't just get up and leave, they are dead.
the relays:
no matter what happens, the relays are destroyed and if you had enough war assets joker crash lands on some garden world. that's the environmental situation. the political one, the one that asks what just happened and what happens next, was a situation chosen by shepard:
if you didn't have enough war assets, the relays destroy everything when they blow up. this is the "you didn't try very hard so everything dies, try again" ending.
if you chose control, the reapers still exist and are scattered throughout the galaxy, presumably with the ability to rebuild the relays during the next cycle. all star systems next to relays are destroyed, putting (most) organic life back at reset with the exception of joker and co. and whoever's left on earth. yeah it's inconve
There is a third option, and one that many people seem to be choosing: voice your criticism, and then vote with your dollar.
i've been saying this in numerous other posts. in those posts i've said voice your criticism but lose the sense of entitlement. buy something else = vote with your dollar.
No one ever said they were (well, most people didn't).
there's been a huge backlash of people demanding that the ending be changed, with one going so far as to complain to the FCC.
They will either listen or they won't. It's that simple.
that's what i've been saying in response to the loud majority who want the ending changed.
When you make a bad game you should be called on your shit.
absolutely. i defend to the death your right to say what you want and all that yada yada yada. bioware has an opinion too. you DO NOT have a RIGHT to DICTATE to the game developer how to make their games. end of story. please, let them know in your loudest voice how much you hated it. but they don't owe you a change. you are NOT entitled. i'm so ashamed of my fellow gamers.
i did play the game. i played it on the hardest difficulty, so i took my time with it (not that much though -- if anything i'd have them change the difficulty settings). the only plot holes are the ones from interpretation. it's not difficult to plug them by considering another explanation, which there are plenty of thanks to how wide they left the ending open. how many movies and books have plot holes? are you entitled to have each of those changed? ffs, the theory of relativity has plot holes. you don't have to get over it, or change your opinion. i think it's great that people think it sucks. what's stupid is the demand that it be changed. for my part, i simply don't think it was tacked on because i was able to spend a lot of time imagining what was left at the end.
btw, i agree the ending to rage was fucked up, but then again the whole game was a cardboard cutout. funny how you don't see a backlash demanding that that get changed. funny how nobody was enraged by rage.
It was too short, lacking detail, and quite obviously HASTILY DONE.
you're entitled to that opinion, and nothing more. that's the issue here. bioware has no obligation to change what you don't like. you know what happens when creators succumb to idiots? george lucas happens, that's what.
the reviews it deserves? lmao you must be one of those tards who writes in to the gaming press wanting to know why your favorite game only got a 9.5. reviews are just a person's opinion. there's no objective standard. am i the only gamer with more than 2 brain cells? i try hard to drink enough to stoop to your level, but shit, man, there's only so much one can do without puking on their own shoes. i have to pause the game when that happens. next you'll be telling me you're entitled to changes in game reviews. rofflecopters
yeah, there is. it's called "other games." try them sometime. vote with your dollar, and use your freedom of speech to explain how you voted. if you don't like the game make your own or buy something else. those are your options. but bioware isn't obligated to do shit about your complaints.
and the decisions do matter. i think a better epilogue might be necessary to enlighten the multitude of morons who don't have the mental capacity to consider the effects of the different outcomes, but that's it. and that's what they've done, here's your epilogue. i don't feel sorry for a single fan who feels entitled to a change. pure idiocy.
buying a game does not create a contractual obligation on the part of the developer to make you like it.
fix it? are you fucking kidding me? do you write to your favorite author and demand they change the ending to their novels just because you don't like them? can i tell michael bay he fucked up transformers and i'm entitled to a reshoot of the movie? if you don't like them you're entitled to that opinion and that's it. not to demand changes. there's no "fix it," bioware can just learn from the opinions of their fans and do better next time. if fans don't want to spend their money next time, they learn from that too. but fuck this seemingly prevailing attitude that fans are entitled to a change. did it ever occur to you that there's no concensus on how it should be changed?
you didn't pay attention to the story, nor did you watch the discussion. the implications of what happened at the end are massively different for each outcome. quit wasting our time.
twitter works more like email than digg or youtube (if you don't like what you see on digg or youtube you can just leave). if you subscribe to an email list and no longer like it, you can remove them from your address book and click "mark as spam." likewise on twitter you can remove followers. i agree that any "mark as spam" feature doesn't work 100%, just like filters don't. it's basically a manual filter, isn't it?
the only real solutions are diligence or abstinence. twitter is just tired of being diligent and abstaining isn't an option if they want to exist at all. i say it's the twitter users who need to be diligent or abstain. i abstain, save for my dev testing account. outside in the real world, we deal with this in the form of junk mail but it's much more difficult to get off the mailing lists. you can't just make your address not exist, and hiding it is not very straightforward. most residential addresses have been around for decades. this outside world scenario, i think, is what this behavior "acceptable." you can throw email spammers in jail, but not junk mail senders. or idk can you? i could be wrong about that.
just because you can whine really loud it doesn't mean you can dictate to a game developer how to make their games. anyone who thinks the difference in endings is the cut scene color wasn't paying attention to the story at all.
well, email campaign tools are meant to send mass emails out to people who have subscribed to lists. they can be abused, or not. in essence, twitter itself is a spam tool. need a "mark as spam" solution for twitter? http://www.ehow.com/how_4557090_remove-followers-twitter.html engineering solution ftw
Slashdot Mirror
Real life indeed is tragic ... exactly why the majority of people don't want that shit in their entertainment.
fail. you fail so hard it's just mind blowing. so by your logic, how in the world could a heavy metal album full of themes about physical, emotional and sexual abuse go platinum? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korn_(album)#Reception. how did a movie like the green mile, with the ending it had, rank #2 at the box office? or how about the movie i referred to earlier, the grey. that's not a happy ending and was #1 its opening weekend. nobody went to that looking for comedic relief.
As for DEEP, that's just an excuse to not have to fabricate an internally consistent story and introduce needless complexity while letting the audience try to paper over the holes.
are you high?
straw man #2:
(Want to bet the epilogue just concentrates on the rest of the crew and leaves the clusterfuck near Earth without closure?)
yeah let's waste time arguing about something that hasn't been released yet, as if whatever bullshit you're assuming is actually true. i have no trouble believing you didn't under the matrix either. i feel sorry for you. ps, i have a straw man for you. nobody gives a fuck about ttgl.
i know. that's the problem, your attitude and those who share it. what you have the right to (your opinion) and what you think you have the right to (forcing a creator to create what you want) are totally different. buying the game is not a contract to tell the game writer what the story should be. you're not commissioning the work under your direction. if we all the had the right to make someone change their creation because we didn't like it, that person would never create another thing because that person would spend the rest of their natural (and probably substantially shorter) life trying please everyone. i'm so glad bioware has the spine to stand up to the whiners. an appreciative fan will say, "i didn't like it. i might not buy your next game based on this." an unappreciative gamer will say, "i didn't like it, and i want you to change it or i definitely won't buy your next game." while the whiners say, "i didn't like it and the world is subject to how i feel so i'm entitled to a different ending and i demand you appease me. here's my gimme-gimme list." which one are you?
Best Buy may not be Shangri La, but in many rural and semi-rural parts of the U.S., it's the nearest and best place to actually find a wide selection of electronics.
Fire the disinterested teenagers.
in many rural and semi-rural parts of the US, it's the nearest and best place to find a job. those areas are rife with the disinterested teenager crowd.
in the destroy ending, not all organic races are doomed, just some. the price of getting rid of the reapers was the sacrifice of a lot of organic races. life's tough.
as for shepard's survival, first they explained that he was already more than human after the illusive man resurrected him. second, he only shows signs of life in the rubble in the control ending. he kind of has to survive, or the whole "control" thing didn't work out. the illusive man was a full blown cyborg after indoctrination. pretty reasonable to assume here that shepard is also part machine.
with the geth after synthesis, they just recently acquired free will as an ability, and now we can assume that whatever it is we think is so great about being "alive" is also granted to the geth.
the beauty of the synthesis choice is that there are so many possible outcomes. the scene with joker and EDI shows the synthesis was successful.
look at his eyes here, while he's normal. just pause when it loads, it's on 0:00. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21w6XrLVXb0
now look here starting at 20:55 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmXGAtjv5aQ. it's my opinion EDI's posture and movement were meant to seem more human (organic) as well. if that's what happened to joker, i think that's also what happened to shepard, probably seconds before he was obliterated by the energy stream he jumped into.
3 choices is more than the 2 (paragon or renegade) they gave you in any other scene. 1/3 of the endings was you being duped into being indoctrinated like the illusive man was. 1/3 of the endings was about you merging all organic and synthetic life together - no reapers, no humans, just cyborgs. 1/3 of the endings was about you destroying the reapers at the cost of most of organic life. the deus ex machina was no such thing, just the last boss. you could defeat it with a choice, instead of shooting the glowing weak spot like most games.
buying a game does not create a contractual obligation on the part of the developer to make you like it.
shepard's fate isn't written one way. in one ending he's (just) a martyr, in another he's alive and indoctrinated, in another he's the human "catalyst" for a new cyborg race, and in another he's failed completely. and there was no explicit claim that every gamer's ending would be different from everyone else's (forgetting the fact that that's impossible anyway). people interpreted it that way, and sadly signing your name on your credit card receipt is not the same as a single employee signing his interview as a contract. artistic freedom absolutely does give you the right to do whatever the fuck you want. michael bay's teenage alien ninja turtles is proof of that.
no, what i'm saying is there's a difference between saying "your game sucks and i want a different ending" (which, the last part i simply think is an incredibly stupid and naive thing to ask for) and saying "your game sucks so now you owe me." it's obvious if you're complaining about the game's ending that you would have liked a different one. just saying the game sucks will suffice, if that's the only message you're getting across. anything more is exactly like a demand, which is a manifestation of entitlement. you don't demand things you don't think you're entitled to. nobody was politely asking for a new ending, it's pretty much all been demands. and i still believe the correct answer to the polite request is no.
a different scenario is where you pay for something that is actually custom for you (hint: the choice system in the game does not make the game custom to you, despite any illusion that you perceive). say you get your car painted and they do the wrong color. you can voice your opinion that the color sucks, but you'd also have the right to demand that the work be redone. consuming a video game is not even remotely close to having your car painted in terms of what is intended solely for you. the crux of the argument against making new endings is that it will ruin the endings for other people who were happy with the way it went. the endings really were open ended enough for anyone to take from it what they wanted to be the long term outcome of each ending offered.
in my analogy, it's like asking that not only do you want your blue ford mustang painted red, but everyone's blue ford mustang painted red, and fuck everyone else's opinion of their car color because it's just you that isn't happy, for your own reasons. let's say, for the sake of argument that you couldn't paint your own car, just like consumers can't edit the code of the game -- if ford promised 9 different colors of mustangs, and they turned out to be 3 different shades of 3 different colors, they wouldn't actually be wrong. you could get pissed and voice your displeasure saying you only see 3 colors, but you'd be out of line to demand they take away hunter green for purple. a billion other people want their own shade swapped out for their own color. no concensus, no standard. get it? bioware did the equivalent of giving you 3 different shades of 3 different colors. there were at least 2 different ways to interpret what the consequences were for each ending, plus what happens in each ending if you didn't get enough war assets collected. people want a wildly different outcome for whether or not miranda died or wrex died or whether you fucked jack, and that's just asinine. if you choose the destroy ending you get to see the squad mates you chose saved. if you chose the synthesis ending you saw joker and EDI synthesized. control ending has squad mates saved like the destroy ending, except shepard is now a reaper instead of a martyr. that's a big diff.
shhhhhh
is it time again already? seems like only 6 months ago i was reading a cute "dumbest IT helpdesk problems EVAR!!" post. maybe it was a different site. looks like someone's in between projects. or jobs.
internet-enable my home energy meter? what could possibly go wrong?
you DO NOT have a RIGHT to DICTATE to the game developer how to make their games. end of story. please, let them know in your loudest voice how much you hated it. but they don't owe you a change. you are NOT entitled.
you start by saying:
Actually, we do.
and close by saying:
So while I cannot dictate how they make their game, I *can* complain that they did not keep their word and deliver what they promised.
and so i think we agree. thanks for playing.
http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/04/06/1947205/bioware-announces-free-dlc-to-add-more-to-the-mass-effect-3-endings#comment_link_39624243
Just how were the endings so very different?
the tl;dr version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmXGAtjv5aQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ7bsIpEKIg
the "if you care to know as much as you care to ask" version:
it's obvious. the endings are so open ended they're left up to interpretation, while still being pretty explicit about what the consequences are. the peace between quarian and geth was no different than the krogan/turian alliance. it was about getting more war assets, basically, which by itself drastically alters things in the end. if you don't make the war asset quota the entire earth is razed and the normandy doesn't survive its escape through the relay.
synthesis ending:
saving the geth wasn't a waste per se, anymore than saving earth or other species, if the synthesis ending is chosen. the idea with that ending is to stop the 50k year cycle. if you get the war asset quota and choose synthesis you get a bonus ending scene very similar to the vague ending of The Grey starring liam neeson. in a split second post-credits scene of that movie you get a glimpse of liam neeson's head resting on the body of the alpha wolf he lunged at just prior to the credits. is he alive? was he mortally wounded? the wolf appears to be breathing, but is it also mortally wounded? even if neeson's character did survive, what about the remaining wolves in the pack? wasn't he getting close to civilization at the end? all kinds of endings can be imagined, but it's up to you to decide. same with these ME3 endings. i think it would have been neat to somehow tie in the geth free will thing with the DNA synthesis but the ways things went in other choices i also think it would have been a bit convoluted to force that connection. in the synthesis ending, shepard shows signs of life, and joker and EDI show signs of being synthesized.
control ending:
in this ending, you choose the indoctrination that the illusive man also chose. there is no "deux ex machina" here, the catalyst kid is simply the reaper leader (i'd be kinda disappointed if i didn't meet him -- it's like neo meeting the architect). the catalyst kid laughs at you as you allow yourself to become indoctrinated. the first appearance of the kid in the beginning sort of implies (in hindsight) that the reapers were attempting to indoctrinate him. the kid also implies that indoctrination is necessary to control the reapers -- who themselves replace organic life while archiving their evolutionary accomplishments and waiting for the next cycle. with shepard's position as potential messiah, he's the best candidate for this control, hence why he's spared and worth the efforts of indoctrination. the geth had acquired free will, so they had to be destroyed in a "control" ending. the synthetics wanted control.
destroy ending:
here you destroy all reapers including the catalyst. in the control ending the kid is still there for his victory laugh but in this ending he's gone. catalyst/reapers dead. as in dead, dead. the reapers on earth don't just get up and leave, they are dead.
the relays:
no matter what happens, the relays are destroyed and if you had enough war assets joker crash lands on some garden world. that's the environmental situation. the political one, the one that asks what just happened and what happens next, was a situation chosen by shepard:
if you didn't have enough war assets, the relays destroy everything when they blow up. this is the "you didn't try very hard so everything dies, try again" ending.
if you chose control, the reapers still exist and are scattered throughout the galaxy, presumably with the ability to rebuild the relays during the next cycle. all star systems next to relays are destroyed, putting (most) organic life back at reset with the exception of joker and co. and whoever's left on earth. yeah it's inconve
There is a third option, and one that many people seem to be choosing: voice your criticism, and then vote with your dollar.
i've been saying this in numerous other posts. in those posts i've said voice your criticism but lose the sense of entitlement. buy something else = vote with your dollar.
No one ever said they were (well, most people didn't).
there's been a huge backlash of people demanding that the ending be changed, with one going so far as to complain to the FCC.
They will either listen or they won't. It's that simple.
that's what i've been saying in response to the loud majority who want the ending changed.
When you make a bad game you should be called on your shit.
absolutely. i defend to the death your right to say what you want and all that yada yada yada. bioware has an opinion too. you DO NOT have a RIGHT to DICTATE to the game developer how to make their games. end of story. please, let them know in your loudest voice how much you hated it. but they don't owe you a change. you are NOT entitled. i'm so ashamed of my fellow gamers.
i did play the game. i played it on the hardest difficulty, so i took my time with it (not that much though -- if anything i'd have them change the difficulty settings). the only plot holes are the ones from interpretation. it's not difficult to plug them by considering another explanation, which there are plenty of thanks to how wide they left the ending open. how many movies and books have plot holes? are you entitled to have each of those changed? ffs, the theory of relativity has plot holes. you don't have to get over it, or change your opinion. i think it's great that people think it sucks. what's stupid is the demand that it be changed. for my part, i simply don't think it was tacked on because i was able to spend a lot of time imagining what was left at the end.
btw, i agree the ending to rage was fucked up, but then again the whole game was a cardboard cutout. funny how you don't see a backlash demanding that that get changed. funny how nobody was enraged by rage.
It was too short, lacking detail, and quite obviously HASTILY DONE.
you're entitled to that opinion, and nothing more. that's the issue here. bioware has no obligation to change what you don't like. you know what happens when creators succumb to idiots? george lucas happens, that's what.
the reviews it deserves? lmao you must be one of those tards who writes in to the gaming press wanting to know why your favorite game only got a 9.5. reviews are just a person's opinion. there's no objective standard. am i the only gamer with more than 2 brain cells? i try hard to drink enough to stoop to your level, but shit, man, there's only so much one can do without puking on their own shoes. i have to pause the game when that happens. next you'll be telling me you're entitled to changes in game reviews. rofflecopters
yeah, there is. it's called "other games." try them sometime. vote with your dollar, and use your freedom of speech to explain how you voted. if you don't like the game make your own or buy something else. those are your options. but bioware isn't obligated to do shit about your complaints.
and the decisions do matter. i think a better epilogue might be necessary to enlighten the multitude of morons who don't have the mental capacity to consider the effects of the different outcomes, but that's it. and that's what they've done, here's your epilogue. i don't feel sorry for a single fan who feels entitled to a change. pure idiocy.
buying a game does not create a contractual obligation on the part of the developer to make you like it.
fix it? are you fucking kidding me? do you write to your favorite author and demand they change the ending to their novels just because you don't like them? can i tell michael bay he fucked up transformers and i'm entitled to a reshoot of the movie? if you don't like them you're entitled to that opinion and that's it. not to demand changes. there's no "fix it," bioware can just learn from the opinions of their fans and do better next time. if fans don't want to spend their money next time, they learn from that too. but fuck this seemingly prevailing attitude that fans are entitled to a change. did it ever occur to you that there's no concensus on how it should be changed?
you didn't pay attention to the story, nor did you watch the discussion. the implications of what happened at the end are massively different for each outcome. quit wasting our time.
twitter works more like email than digg or youtube (if you don't like what you see on digg or youtube you can just leave). if you subscribe to an email list and no longer like it, you can remove them from your address book and click "mark as spam." likewise on twitter you can remove followers. i agree that any "mark as spam" feature doesn't work 100%, just like filters don't. it's basically a manual filter, isn't it?
the only real solutions are diligence or abstinence. twitter is just tired of being diligent and abstaining isn't an option if they want to exist at all. i say it's the twitter users who need to be diligent or abstain. i abstain, save for my dev testing account. outside in the real world, we deal with this in the form of junk mail but it's much more difficult to get off the mailing lists. you can't just make your address not exist, and hiding it is not very straightforward. most residential addresses have been around for decades. this outside world scenario, i think, is what this behavior "acceptable." you can throw email spammers in jail, but not junk mail senders. or idk can you? i could be wrong about that.
bullshit.
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/03/30/why-changing-the-mass-effect-3-ending-is-a-mistake.aspx
and watch this discussion
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/03/27/spoiled-mass-effect-3.aspx
just because you can whine really loud it doesn't mean you can dictate to a game developer how to make their games. anyone who thinks the difference in endings is the cut scene color wasn't paying attention to the story at all.
well, email campaign tools are meant to send mass emails out to people who have subscribed to lists. they can be abused, or not. in essence, twitter itself is a spam tool. need a "mark as spam" solution for twitter? http://www.ehow.com/how_4557090_remove-followers-twitter.html engineering solution ftw