Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pnx]

Another consequence is that your stock price can fall low enough that a competitor can afford to buy you out... But that requires the right conditions.

[Pandarsenic]

That's pretty much why I was so sad to say I don't think they'll get into any legitimate danger from this; I can't see them managing to piss anyone off enough to need the cash influx from fucking off about Origin because all they have to do is cobble together a pile-of-guns DLC for Battlefield 3 or something and BAM INSTANT MONEY.

Also

Contrary to popular belief, a company's stock price actually is technically incapable of affecting a company's financial bottom line.

That's popular belief? o_O It's not like the company itself is going to be selling their stock off at almost any given time.

[umiman]

I don't really understand what you're trying to say but yeah; a lot of people have no freaking clue how economies work. Especially in my line of work (finance) where practically every day I meet someone who still thinks the world runs on the gold standard or that we're a mercantile economy.

If web developers think they have it hard when their clients cry about things they don't understand, they've never tried managing someone else's finances.

[Kilroy the Grand]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Mostly because we were told "Your choices matter, and will affect the end of the game!" They did not. Instead we get an unexplained deus ex machina in the last 10 minutes of the game, a character that made and controlled the reapers, the antagonist of the entire three games. This character then gives you three stupid choices, which shepard accepts without any question.

The three decisions are
1)control the reapers but you kill youself (no idea how that works)
2)Destroy all synthetic life (No question if it affects people with biotic implants or not)
3)Combine synthetic life & normal life... somehow.

The reason the deus ex machina gives for causing untold genocides for millions of years? Why, synthetic life would kill all the organics! So naturally it had to kill off all organic life to save it for machines, like himself!

All of that. IN. THE. LAST. TEN. MINUTES.

My rage was barely contained ferif

[fenrif]

one thing I'm curious about: why is it mass effect's ending is so bad to you guys? I mean, I've seen them, but haven't played the game beyond one time at my friend's house, so it may be that I'm missing something, but it's been kind of annoying, I don't think the endings are as bad as people describe, but I can't help but feels it's because I haven't played it through.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

They introduce new characters and plot devices in the last 5 minutes that explains away the main motivation for the past 2.9 games with completely illogical nonsense. You choose from 3 endings, 1 of which is completely baffling: machines get organic DNA, organics (and Jokers hat) get circuits. The other two basically destroy the entire setting if you follow the established logic of the series. You learn nothing about what happens to the squadmates or characters in a game series that's pretty heavily focused on those relationships. There's basically no closure or emotional reward for the player at all.

It's also a huge disconnect from the themes and focus of the rest of the series. Mass Effect was heavily marketed on the fact that it was your story. In the end you can't do anything but meekly go along with these choices without even questioning them. The ending tries to suddenly decide the main plot and theme of the series is organics Vs Machines, which just never was. Sure it came up a few times, but that's not what the games were about, especially since in almost every other situation you can foster peace and understanding, which the ending says is impossible.

None of your choices in any of the previous games have any impact at all on the ending in any real sense, you get the exact same cinematic just with different coloured explosions. I think as close as two weeks before the game shipped Bioware devs were still saying that it wouldn't be a "choose A, B or C" which actually would've been better than what we got because it implies three different endings rather than one ending with three colours.

Basically everything about it is wrong.

Kilroy you might wanna spoiler that, I don't know if everyone has finished the game.

[hermes]

Kilroy you might wanna spoiler that, I don't know if everyone has finished the game.

For those of you that don't want to know the specifics but want to understand how Bioware writers operate, check out this report from O'Brady Shaw, it pretty accurately describes the whole Mass Effect storyline rationale.

Oh, and a question for those who've played 2 and 3: What became of the "mass effect"?  Back in the day when this was a promising game, much was made of the fact that humans were in some way special, and this was explored in Drew's books nicely.  It seemed like a defining feature between organics and synthetics was going to be that organics could potentially become biotics, and that this might be the key to stopping the Reapers.  Did anything come of this thread?

[Domenique]

I kinda agree to yahtzee's opinion on this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9511-Mass-Effect-3-Gets-An-Ending.2

I guess the people that were deep in the franchise got dissapointed, meanwhile others were able to have fun. It's the matter of how much you feel entitled. I find such reaction quite juvenile. I mean, why do you people let the last 5 seconds ruin the game for you? I didn't like it either, but overall I enjoyed it. "It's the trip that counts, not the destination." says the cliche facebook girl. Also I love the fact how a lot of people didn't even notice anything terrifingly evil about the ending until they saw the comments and decided to jump in the clusterfuck of doom. Even when the devs announce they'll expand the ending for free, you whine.

[fenrif]

It's psychology. The last moments of an experience colour your memory of the entire experience, and you rememeber that when you think of it. Nothing about being jouvenile or entitled.

The devs expanding the ending is bad because they're basically polishing a turd. I'd rather they not waste the money and effort expanding a terrible ending, just leave it be. That's not whining that's just an opinion. All the things that make the ending a comple asspull non-sequiter (it's not a case of deus ex machina, that implies it somehow progresses the plot instead of just stopping it dead) are still there. It doesn't help that Bioware seem to think people dislike the ending because it's sad, rather than admitting that it's just terrible from every possible way of looking at it.

Pretty much everyone who played the game thought the ending was bad without reading comments. I dunno where you got that from? I doubt people were going "oh this ending isn't that bad, what, someone else didn't enjoy it? I'll donate money to charity to get it changed then!" But whatever, you seem pretty determined that people who don't like the ending are doing it for some reason other than the ending being a steaming pile.

Also from the escapist article you posted:

Because if it's established that the creators of a story can be pressured by constant browbeating by the audience, then the sanctity of the creator's original intention is made meaningless. The series will effectively have no ending, just a big gap with the words "Audience: Fill In Your Preferred Ending Here". 

The above is the opinion of someone who doesn't understand what they're talking about. Does Sherlock Holmes have no ending because he was brought back from the dead after fan outcry? Not to mention the series allready HAS no ending, just a last minute checkovs gun that was never set up in any of the previous 2.9 games. The gaming medias response to this has been the most laughable and telling part of the whole debacle. Calling gamers entitled, whiney, crybabies, etc for having the temerity to ask for a satisfying, logical, ending. To be as bold to say the nonsense drivel isn't acceptable based on the fact that the games creators were bold-faced lying about what the ending would be days before the game released. It's not even the first time a games ending has been changed because the fans weren't happy, but somehow the sky is falling because in an industry entirely focused on customer experience, people are catering to their customers!

[Domenique]

This is juvenile. You are writing paragraphs on how much you hate the last 5 seconds of the game, giving no arguments for the reason, other than

The last moments of an experience colour your memory of the entire experience, and you rememeber that when you think of it.

.

That's your emotional response to being unsatisfied, like you would say that dating girl X was a mistake, because it ended in a fucked up kind of manner, and that is wrong, you're saying this just because you let your emotion overcome reason, which is the definition of "juvenile". You say people go on road trips just because they want to reach some stupid destination?

Yes, Bioware fucked up with the ending. But the question "will the reapers be destroyed" was answered. That's why it doesn't make the past games obsolete, nor does it make the game itself a pile of crap, it just makes the ending bad. And if you buy games only for the ending, you might as well watch that in Youtube and be happy about it. You buy it for the whole expirience, so evaluate the whole expirience, not take the ending and poke your eyes out with it.

I agree with the article where you pointed. If a character dies, he stays dead. It felt less enjoyable reading about zombie Sherlock Holmes, because him being dead was much more logical than being alive. The ending is creator's alone and the gamers should at least respect it. And how can you not call them entitled when all they do IS CRY ABOUT THE ENDING? If they weren't entitled, then they would have the decency to admit that overall the game was good, it's just that the ending wasn't to your tastes or something like that.

[MorleyDev]

People wouldn't be as vocal if the developers hadn't repeatedly stated it would have had an ending which was more that just "choose A, B or C" almost right up to release. This was a common piece of marketing and brings an important question about promises vs delivery.

If a product does not deliver on it's promised features, it can be considered faulty or false advertising. If you said your oven goes up to 300 but the dial itself only goes to 250, could the product be considered faulty?

Games are a product like anything else, so if they failed to deliver their "more than just A, B or C endings" promise, does this count as a breach of consumer trust?

And yes, yes I go on road trips to reach "some stupid destination". That's the point of the trip. To reach a place and have fun there. If the journey is fun too, yay. The point of the journey is to be all "FUCK YEAH!" when you get to the destination, so you can fully enjoy the destination. If the destination sucks, the journey was still a waste of time.

Otherwise people wouldn't go on road trips, they'd drive around the block for an hour.

[fenrif]

This is juvenile. You are writing paragraphs on how much you hate the last 5 seconds of the game, giving no arguments for the reason, other than

The last moments of an experience colour your memory of the entire experience, and you rememeber that when you think of it.

.

That's your emotional response to being unsatisfied, like you would say that dating girl X was a mistake, because it ended in a fucked up kind of manner, and that is wrong, you're saying this just because you let your emotion overcome reason, which is the definition of "juvenile". You say people go on road trips just because they want to reach some stupid destination?

Yes, Bioware fucked up with the ending. But the question "will the reapers be destroyed" was answered. That's why it doesn't make the past games obsolete, nor does it make the game itself a pile of crap, it just makes the ending bad. And if you buy games only for the ending, you might as well watch that in Youtube and be happy about it. You buy it for the whole expirience, so evaluate the whole expirience, not take the ending and poke your eyes out with it.

I agree with the article where you pointed. If a character dies, he stays dead. It felt less enjoyable reading about zombie Sherlock Holmes, because him being dead was much more logical than being alive. The ending is creator's alone and the gamers should at least respect it. And how can you not call them entitled when all they do IS CRY ABOUT THE ENDING? If they weren't entitled, then they would have the decency to admit that overall the game was good, it's just that the ending wasn't to your tastes or something like that.

I'm going to hazard you don't know what jouvenile actually means, because your definition of it is laughably wrong. I would quote the many many times in this thread that I've criticised the ending (and indeed the rest of ME3 as a whole... I certainly don't think the rest of the game is good) but most of them are spoilered for a reason, if you can't be bothered to read them that's your fault. Rest assured I have given arguements as to why the ending is bad regardless of wether you read or understand them. Especially since I'm pretty sure you've responded to my problems with the ending previously in this thread, though it might have been someone else I guess.

Spending money on something, finding out it isnt as advertised and is a poor value for money, and then complaining about it isn't entitlement. It's how the world works. Complaining about something has absolutely nothing to do with entitlement anyway.

I get that you personally didn't have a problem with the ending, but that doesn't mean it's good. You seem to be arguing "I didn't have a problem with it so there is no problem when not having a problem with the ending is an obviously minority opinion.

If you want to talk about entitlement some more, perhaps we should discuss game publishers trying to move the industry towards renting a service instead of purchasing a product, but refusing to pass on any savings or values associated with the new direction. Maybe we should talk about the ridiculously entitled position that the second hand market is stealing their profits because they are entitled to money for every copy of a game anyone buys anywhere for all time. Or how they're entitled to be above any form of criticism because they've decided they make art now, instead of a commercial product like they claim whenever money enters the conversation. I mean it really is a meaty subject.

[Kilroy the Grand]

Guys stop being so entitled, bioware has crafting a super awesome story! You are all just mad because it was 2deep4u

[Darkmere]

At this point, what makes me angrier than anything about the game is pretty much any "serious critic" or "industry pundit" or whatever you want to call them being COMPLETELY UNABLE to acknowledge that the ending doesn't make sense. It's not about some grand artistic vision not being played out across a canvas that people disliked..... It's about a series of events that cannot logically have happened.

Nowhere in the sea of complaints, rebuttals, and dismissive spite of consumers have I seen one person who could notice the gaping lack of coherent plot. I guess that's how M. Knight Shyamalan still has a career, so it's to be expected, right?

[fenrif]

Well you see it's ~*art*~. It should always be written that way because this is the kind of art a 12 year old creates. It's art in the sense that someone created it, but it's unable to be criticised, looked at objectively or held up to any scruitiny. Any problems you have with this ~*art*~ are entirely your own because it is perfect by virtue of being ~*art*~. It is rigid and unchanging and as a form of communication only goes one way, from creator to (eternally gratefull and never negative) audience. ~*Art*~ has an entire industry of people whos sole purpose is to praise it.

This is distinct from real normal art in that art invites criticism instead of pretending to be above it. Art is made more enjoyable by criticism, because by scrutinising it you enhance your understanding of what it is and how it was made. Art doesn't lie about what it is because it's scared about losing profits. Art learns from its mistakes. Art accepts that there will be people who just wont get it, instead of trying to be everything to everyone. Art is as much driven by the audience's experience of it as by the creators intended meaning. Art has an entire industry of people whos sole purpose is to criticise it.

(Not to say that 12 year olds are incapable of creating art, but you know what I mean)

As I've said before, the best thing about this whole cerfuffle is that the games "jouranlist" industry has been so blatant about showing where their alliegences lie. They "criticise" for the game developers and publishers, not for the customers and audience. The baffling vitriol the majority of them seem to hold for the people who they are supposed to be representing is shocking, even if their complete lack of objectivity is not.

[Domenique]

So basicaly they told they will do something and they didn't. Welcome to the human race.


Also, it's true that journalists are mostly sold out, but you can't blame them, they can't bite the only hand that is feeding them.