Bioware Confirms Game Extending DLC
- Thread starter Tomo Stryker
- Start date
No, this is the story equivalent of a bug patch.OhJohnNo said:
Well, except for the "the story was too bleak" aspects. Complaining about an ending being sad is basically whining.
The ending wasn't "sad" really, it just lacked sense, closure, and choice. I wouldn't expect it to be free, Bioware is a branch of EA now so expect a ten dollar DLC.Zen Toombs said:
Thank you, that's exactly what I was saying.Tomo Stryker said:
Also, yes I expect that Mass Effect's DLC (including the ones that take care of the horrifying ending) will cost us the big $$. And as much as I loved the Mass Effect series, if that is the case I won't be buying it. That's what youtube is for.
[small]okay, if it's really cheap and I hear good reviews I might[/small]
*cough cough* Anyways, I'll even go so far as to say that I'll get around to linking my Xbox profile to this account in order to confirm to all y'all that "yes, this person is done with Bioware games he hasn't already bought" once it's confirmed that EA has chosen to continue to screw the pooch on this one.
Aha, I have you! There is a point where a choice you make before the ending impacts the story: the collector base decision!Zeel said:
Obviously, your argument is invalid.
You know what would have been even better, we could have accepted that nothing's perfect and they could have spent their time making better DLC or new games. I found the ending to be a bit short, but was never on the side of the petitioners and people who committed ritual mass suicides.* Citation needed.
And if it isn't, I'm going to spend whatever money they price it at, and I'm going to love every minute of it, like I loved every minute of the rest of ME3.AC10 said:
So what, there shouldn't be cross genre games? Genres aren't 100% static where other genre elements can't fit.Zeel said:
To give an example: Portal has three genre elements, puzzle, platforming, and shooter. It isn't traditional shooting, but it is shooting in a sense. A portal gun is used to shoot out energy to make portals that are used to complete puzzles. Shooting said portal gun can used in creative ways to shoot portals to stop and even destroy enemies. That is why the game is referred to a lot as a puzzle shooter.
By your dislike of having shooter elements in ME2 and M3, you can't possibly like ME1 either, because it had plenty of shooter elements, especially since it had guns and I pressed a trigger to shoot, and if I wasn't aiming at the enemy I wouldn't hit anything, plus, where you hit people mattered.
Plus, when I played ME1, I did a hell of a lot of sniping. Hell, ME1 had more realistic and advanced shooter elements that many shooter games. Take the sniper rifles, they actually have a realistic shaking movement of the gun sight. And if I remember correctly, there was also bullet drop off.
The reason I'm saying this is that in one comment you are railing against ME2 and ME3(obviously because you most likely liked ME1 and didn't like the changes), and then in the comment I quoted, you are railing against shooter elements "infecting your genre", when the were quite a few if not more shooter elements in ME1.
Besides, it isn't just your genre, it is the genre of anybody that plays the games. I like playing RPGs, and there isn't one right way to make RPGs, and there can be and have been many great RPGs that incorporate other genres into them. Hell, KoTOR had time trial racing in it, and it worked, it also had a strategy card game as well, and it worked too.
The only thing the Mass Effect series did compared to other RPGs with guns, is give people full control of the guns. I like that they did that, I much prefer and RPG that lets me have full control over my weapons, along with putting points in stats to help make my weapons better. I rather have that then leave my shooting to a dice roll and hope that it rolls a hit.
So in the realm of RPGs, for me, the more control I have over the outcome of things, the better.
Yes and no. Would you be mad if you bought a book that said that the real ending was your for only 10$ more?OhJohnNo said:
Charging extra for endings is a bad, BAD business practice.
OT: As general as this statement is, it gives me zero hope for anything.
If we counted dialogue, almost every decision mattered. But for some reason I don't think that was your point.Zeel said:
On the Collector base - I forget exactly where I found this, but somewhere there's a list of all ~17 variations on the ending based on a couple variables. Those variables are "Save/Destroy Collector Base x Red, Green or Blue Explosion x EMS". If I recall correctly, you are "rewarded" for choosing the corresponding "morality choice" if you don't have a high enough EMS. But, if you have over 4,000 or so then it's entirely irrelevant.
Send me a message to remind me to look it up tomorrow, so I can do a fancy schmancy retcon/edit thing.
ALREADY EDIT: by the by, I don't think this in any way affects my not-so-good opinion of the ending. Just being a nerd and geeking out over the specifics. ;-)
EDIT 2: Huh. Talking to Zeel again, and both times in a civil manner. Who'da thunk. *shrug*
Edit 3: Looked it up before going to bed, found it. Copy-pasta!
Honestly, that low EMS thing could hurt the Indoctrination theory a bit. Not a lot, and it can still recover, but still. Also, SOURCY SOURCE [http://www.rarityguide.com/articles/articles/1739/1/Mass-Effect-3-Endings-Guide---HEAVY-SPOILERS/Page1.html]
[small]Wow I start getting loopy when I'm tired.[/small]
So he thinks everyone is complaining because the ending is "too sad"? And yet he claims to be listening intently to his fans?
No, any DLC that is separate to the game, is separate content and EA has every right to price it. Same with Square Enix. It's *their* games. Nobody is twisting ears to get consumers to buy it.AC10 said:
And players are entitled to *nothing* except voicing their opinion and having access to the game they paid for. Casey Hudson promised 16 endings, ME3 had six (that I've seen, minus multiplayer intervention). It didn't end up being true, but Bioware still owes them nothing. Peter Molyneux promised foliage that would grow in real-time in the original Fable. And that game's ending sucked too.
And not nearly that many people are so upset that they are petitioning Bioware. 80% is exorbitantly high.
This makes me glad that I never played the ME series. I always meant to get around to playing these damn games but there was always some other game pulling me away from these huge timesinks. Hearing how extraordinarily crappy the ending is(and I don't even know the backstory except from what people write online) it makes me glad that I was spared the heartbreak(maybe a harsh word for the situation but you know what I mean).
The ending itself was piss in the face of longtime fans that wanted to see consequences of their actions/actual endings for the goddam characters and this "game extending" DLC gives s**t as well as piss.
I won't tell them HOW to end their creation but give it an actual freaking end, not a multicoloured cop-out. This is not the way to end what was hailed as a sci-fi gaming classic, with a universal conflict affecting tons of characters and worlds. Hell, DX:HR had better ending and they were basically from the pick-your-ending 3000 machine. Each of them at least gave SCENARIOS of what would happen and what happened to each character(outside of jensen). It was a somewhat childish way to end a great game but it was still way more mature than ME3's ending scheme.
A trilogy that spans over five years should get at least a decent ending, if not a great one. ME3 had no ending, not even multiple endings, like I said, they were multicoloured cop-outs that basically said to the player "whatever you did in the last 2 games had no impact on the conclusion of the trilogy". This would have been bad in a normal game but it's much,much worse in a series that prides itself of choice and consequence.
This whole post ending DLC thing(not to mention the day 1 DLC's), plus what that EA guys was thinking about charging you a buck to reload IN THE GAME THAT YOU BOUGHT, speaks to a great problem that is going on in the industry, which is that they screw the consumer in the ass and they know that the stupid consumer will actually like it, the fanboys put up with a lot of crap to get their fix.
I just hope that we as gamers wise up and call them on their freaking bullshit.
The ending itself was piss in the face of longtime fans that wanted to see consequences of their actions/actual endings for the goddam characters and this "game extending" DLC gives s**t as well as piss.
I won't tell them HOW to end their creation but give it an actual freaking end, not a multicoloured cop-out. This is not the way to end what was hailed as a sci-fi gaming classic, with a universal conflict affecting tons of characters and worlds. Hell, DX:HR had better ending and they were basically from the pick-your-ending 3000 machine. Each of them at least gave SCENARIOS of what would happen and what happened to each character(outside of jensen). It was a somewhat childish way to end a great game but it was still way more mature than ME3's ending scheme.
A trilogy that spans over five years should get at least a decent ending, if not a great one. ME3 had no ending, not even multiple endings, like I said, they were multicoloured cop-outs that basically said to the player "whatever you did in the last 2 games had no impact on the conclusion of the trilogy". This would have been bad in a normal game but it's much,much worse in a series that prides itself of choice and consequence.
This whole post ending DLC thing(not to mention the day 1 DLC's), plus what that EA guys was thinking about charging you a buck to reload IN THE GAME THAT YOU BOUGHT, speaks to a great problem that is going on in the industry, which is that they screw the consumer in the ass and they know that the stupid consumer will actually like it, the fanboys put up with a lot of crap to get their fix.
I just hope that we as gamers wise up and call them on their freaking bullshit.
After reading the article that you linked, and also some other statements made by Bioware on this subject, it dawned on me that they just don't get it. Or maybe they don't want to get it, because it's not giving enough options for sellable DLC.Tomo Stryker said:
They focus so much on "fans want happier ending", no, we don't necessarily want a happier ending, we want an ending that makes sense. An ending that reflects the choices you made throughout 3 very lengthy games.
If one of those endings happens to be all sunshine, rainbows and unicorns, than great, if one of those endings is a complete apocalypse where NOTHING survives, than fine too. Maybe it will be something in the middle, all that the players want is not to have their choices shat over and actually walk away from the game, feeling a great sense of accomplishment.
im kinda happy that it said "game exteding" instead of end changing. a good extension that resovles some issues would be fine i think. then again i really didnt care if they added on to the end or not
"Hudson said the game had been designed with a series of endings to key plots to allow players to "carry the knowledge of these consequences with you as you complete the final moments of your journey."
I call bull shit on that, i got exactly the same ending as my mate when he let the quarians die. None of the choices i made affected the ending and thus makes it pointless to re-play the game for. I dont want bioware to change the ending i want them to make it better, with more closure.
I call bull shit on that, i got exactly the same ending as my mate when he let the quarians die. None of the choices i made affected the ending and thus makes it pointless to re-play the game for. I dont want bioware to change the ending i want them to make it better, with more closure.