We should forgive Bioware.

[Something Amyss]

Can you tell me what Mass Effect 3 did right? Like anything it did that was good, Because I've played it through 6 times now and have found maybe 3 minutes of "acceptable" or "good" things in this 50 hour game.

Can you tell me why you've played a 50 hour game 6 times if you don't like it at all?

 

[AldUK]

Fact is, BioWare today isn't the BioWare of 6-12 years ago which is around the time they gained such a big following (depending on if you're a BG fan or not) and if you look at the company roster you can see that for yourself.

What people need to do is stop treating a company as a personal entity. You can't really say you 'trust' BioWare, because BioWare isn't a person, it's a company. And all they care about is making a profit, they aren't your buddy.

Honestly, start looking at things objectively based upon their own individual merits and stop looking at only a brand name as a measure of quality. Because it doesn't work like that.

On a side note, woohoo Baldur's Gate Enhanced edition! (And it's got nothing to do with BioWare!)

 

[Eynimeb]

I don't see what's there to forgive...

I hated the ME3 ending. In my eyes, they made a mistake. But that doesn't make them villains, it merely makes them human.

Artists sometimes creating things you don't like is simply part of creative freedom. A franchise like Mass Effect, with its progressive views, and openly gay/bi characters would never have existed in the first place, were it not for the creators' option to shrug off public backlash.

To then complain when they do something *you* don't like, and say that they need to be 'forgiven' is hypocritical, and counter-productive.

You can't have the good without the bad, people. It's either good things and bad things together, or cookie-cutter things all around...

 

[alceste007]

I don't see what's there to forgive...

I hated the ME3 ending. In my eyes, they made a mistake. But that doesn't make them villains, it merely makes them human.

Artists sometimes creating things you don't like is simply part of creative freedom. A franchise like Mass Effect, with its progressive views, and openly gay/bi characters would never have existed in the first place, were it not for the creators' option to shrug off public backlash.

To then complain when they do something *you* don't like, and say that they need to be 'forgiven' is hypocritical, and counter-productive.

You can't have the good without the bad, people. It's either good things and bad things together, or cookie-cutter things all around...

I was not a fan of the original ME3 ending, but I never felt the need to nerd rage. ME3 improved on the AI of the enemies as well as added a horde mode that I found that I liked (surprisingly enough).

 

[zachusaman]

remember those good people who made good games?
yea? there gone. bioware is nothing more than a name to sell cheesy ripoffs from.

 

[darlarosa]

Let's be honest people are still gonna by their games maybe not a hopeful as before, and maybe some will now wait for reviews instead of going on blind faith. The games will be bought by plenty of people.

I think they may need to revise how they do things, or assess their strengths and then focus on their weaknesses, but I'll still buy a product if it interests me. The concern is when 2 games do not give their fans the same quality.(I never played Old Republic, but I hear that game is of mixed opinion) . If the fans complaints are reasonable(ME 3 ending felt forced even with extended cuts, Dragon Age: 2 turned off strategic players and the game's geography was agonizingly limited, poor pacing, etc) Then Bioware needs to react to that.

 

[Nobodyman]

I've never had to forgive them. They've made some mistakes, but everyone has. And none of them were bad enough for me to hate them like I know so many others do now.

 

[pilouuuu]

If they leave EA it'd be much easier to forgive them. I can't help but blaming EA for their misteps, although they are probably guilty too.

They're guilty of not evolving, of making the same game over and over again, of dumbing down their games and making false promises (i.e., Mass Effect 3 pre DLC ending considering your decisions in previous games).

But I think there's still hope for them and they seem like nice people. I still like the company. I'd love for them to make an amazind Dragon Age III.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Can you tell me what Mass Effect 3 did right? Like anything it did that was good, Because I've played it through 6 times now and have found maybe 3 minutes of "acceptable" or "good" things in this 50 hour game.

Can you tell me why you've played a 50 hour game 6 times if you don't like it at all?

I can!

I already had multiple Shepards who made different choices over the first 2 games (And had different survivors of the suicide mission) I was checking to see if anything changed based on the choices you made in the first two games.

So that's why I played it so much.

 

[Mikeyfell]

I will forgive Bioware when they actually do something wrong. What the hell did Bioware actually do that they need your forgiveness? If anything it should be the other way around. Oh no they created a game you didnt like big fucking deal. People need to grow up and get the fuck over it.

Can you tell me what Mass Effect 3 did right? Like anything it did that was good, Because I've played it through 6 times now and have found maybe 3 minutes of "acceptable" or "good" things in this 50 hour game.

If you played through it six times you must have liked something about it. Nobody in their right mind would spend 250 hours playing something that they did not enjoy.

The assumption there being that I'm in my right mind...0_o

I was checking if anything changed based on different decisions I made during the previous Mass Effect games. Like if there was some magic permutation of events that made the third game stop sucking.

You know that's what people forget, Mass Effect used to be about making massive choices and seeing how they effect the universe.
For example the first save I imported was one where I picked Udina for the council seat,
Then I imported a save where I picked Anderson and I was all like "What the fuck Bioware"
At that point I was in shock and had to find out if anything you did in the first two games mattered. As it turns out Melon's research is the only thing that mattered (And if Wrex, Mordin or Thane survived)

So I was looking for some excuse to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they fucked up pretty hard.

 

[Olas]

Ya, let's never support them ever again, even if they produce high quality products that people enjoy.

PS: I won't forgive Mass Effect 3, since it was a great game.

 

[Ruzinus]

Games cost money, and, when they're Bioware games, they cost a lot of time.

Did you think all that reaction to the ME3 ending was just rage? No... it was the fans of the series giving Bioware a chance, rather than just giving up on them on the spot.

There are far more games available than most people will have time to play, and people want to experience the best ones. It doesn't take a lot of burning for them to become wary about investing in a creative enterprise.

 

[OrokuSaki]

Personally, I've just been blaming the decline in Bioware games on EA. Bioware has always released outstanding games, all the way back to the first Neverwinter Nights. Really the only factor that I see as having changed is them rushing to meet the deadline, which I blame on EA. (I could be entirely wrong, but it's my belief that EA is "footing the bill" for bioware games and is therefore responsible for the games being rushed to completion).

From what I've seen most of the problems with Bioware games lately is that they seem unfinished: DA2 constantly re-used environments to pad out the play time with unnecessary side-quests (which are different from their usual side-quests that somehow enrich the overall plot); ME3 tried to be an "epic conclusion" and put so much effort into that effect that nobody really thought about how to give it a proper ending (haven't finished ME3 yet, but asshole friends ruined the endings), and ToR..... well it was an MMO.

That's why I don't blame Bioware for bad games.

 

[SageRuffin]

I already have. And when I get the chance, I slap in Jade Empire and have fun, like a game should let me do.

Hmm... I have the strangest feeling I fucked up my wording somewhere...

 

[sanquin]

No, we should not forgive Bioware. Not until they 'redeem' themselves by bringing out at least two good titles again. I could forgive them after DA2, and after ME2 (the latter not being a terrible game, but still quite sub-par in a lot of area's.) It was getting REALLY hard to continue forgiving them after SWTOR, but ME3 was the last drop for me. They're no longer bioware. They're EA hiding behind the bioware logo.

A company that used to be good for a long time, then destroyed it's own reputation, should not just be forgiven. Would you forgive, say, a car company if several cars it brought out were REALLY sub-par and had all kinds of flaws, even after extensive customer complaint for years? Would you forgive a food company for making bad tasting, kind of off looking food for a few years? No, you wouldn't, don't lie. You would stop buying from them until they proved that they could make something good again.

 

[Mikeyfell]

I can understand where you're coming from, but for them to take account for everything that happened in the previous two games, Mass Effect 3 would've essentially needed to have five completely different storylines entirely. Or maybe three that occasionally intersected depending on actions taken... regardless, it's not entirely feasible to believe Bioware would be able to do something like that, especially given the strict deadlines EA implements on them and how utterly ridiculous Casey Hudson got during the development process.

I don't understand it as an argument for why you hate Bioware, though.

I do blame as much as I can on EA. I use weak rationalizations like "Maybe if they weren't forced to include Multyplayer Bioware could have put more work in the single player" or "Maybe if they had 5 years instead of 2 ME 3 would have been what it should have been" or "Maybe if they didn't have to have so much pointless shooting the game would have some more depth" but there is stuff I can't blame EA for the Crucible. Hudson said "There won't be a magic bullet solution to the Reaper invasion" some time after Mass Effect 2 came out and yet here we are looking for Crucible parts. EA didn't make them pad out the game's run time with soulless fetch quests. It wasn't EA's fault that Morinth wasn't in the game for more than a second. EA didn't make them turn Jack into a mother hen character. What happened to "Every time someone dies and it isn't me my chances go up." I understand they wanted the character to grow but in the most cliche way possible? I thought Bioware was better than that. EA didn't hold a gun to their head and make them to take away every spark of personality Liara had. EA didn't force them to release a game where you couldn't import your main character's face! (I know they sort of fixed that, I'm still bitter) EA didn't tell them to put all the movement commands on the A button. EA isn't the reason that some jackass we never heard of before called Kai Leng is the main villain. EA didn't threaten to eat dog if they didn't include a plot hole every five minutes. (Oh no! I got started talking about Mass Effect 3 again... Must Stop...)

Sure some of it rests on EA's shoulders but a whole lot is Bioware's fault.

Is it because it was the end of the trilogy? Because the story of Mass Effect 2 didn't really change much dependent on your actions in the first game, either. In fact, the Rachni Queen being saved or killed wasn't brought up even once, that I remember, and Kaidan/Ashley had the exact same lines.

This is part of the reason I say "Mass Effect 3 ruined the whole series!" with all the self righteous indignation I can muster. Mass Effect 2 was my favorite game in the series and a big part of that was that I thought they were keeping it simple as a set up for ME 3. Yeah not a lot happened except you were introduced to a slew of interesting characters (And Jacob)
There were a bunch of little reminders like running into what's her face from Feros (And the Rachni Queen was mentioned on Ilium if you saved her) You got to see Anderson being a Councilor for like a second. etc etc... And at the time I thought those were just teasers and setup for a bigger pay off in Mass Effect 3. But as it turns out those little moments were the full pay off for all the choices you made in the first game, and it's disappointing. It's a "Wait, that was it?!" moment. As for the choices you do make in Mass Effect 2 they aren't even brought up in ME 3 for the most part. Giving Cerberus the Collector base is mentioned twice, (3 times if you count when Jack brings it up) Turning down Spectre status is glossed over in one line of dialog. Malon's Genophage data is just about the only thing that effects the third game. (Besides the death's or not of Wrex and Mordin)

Now see, I don't really think it had much meaning to begin with. To me, it was just a way to be entertained. Sure, I got invested in the stories and characters, but when I finished Mass Effect 3, I was just done with it. I moved on.

And I don't think it's really supposed to be a branching story. To me, at least, a branching story is something like Shadow The Hedgehog or Final Fantasy XIII-2, where the actual story, levels you visit, people you encounter, ending you get, will change completely based on things you do. Mass Effect always felt more like... imagine a straight line that occasionally has other lines turning off of it, but all of those lines end up in a dead stop eventually, so you have to go back to the original line you turned off of. I never felt Mass Effect was intended to have a branching storyline, because the overarching plot for the first two games always ended up the same no matter what choices you made.

Mass Effect: Go to Noveria, Feros, Virmire, and Ilos, kill Saren.

Mass Effect 2: Recruit your team, chase the Collectors around, attack their base.

All of the extra stuff along the way was just... extra stuff. So I guess we just feel differently about the impact of the events that happened in the first two Mass Effect games.

I feel like a robot now...

well that's all good.

I get too invested for my own good most of the time. So I probably enjoy things a deeper level than you do, but the flip side is that this happens and I play a shit game 6 times in a row just to make sure it is all shit.

I couldn't imagine Mass Effect with out the "extra stuff" if all there was in Mass Effect were

Mass Effect: Go to Noveria, Feros, Virmire, and Ilos, kill Saren.

It would have been boring. All the stuff that sticks with me is the stuff in the first Citadel section and the beginning of the Noveria part and talking to my squad in between missions

Mass Effect 2 I thought was only "extra stuff" the main story was encapsulated in 4 out of like 30 missions.
The main story was nothing to me I was like "Reaper invasion? Big whoop, let's go see what Garrus is calibrating today. Let's go see if Kaiden has any more angstey stories. Let's go see if Jacob is...uh... still black?"

The Reaper invasion, the Dark Spawn, any Bioware story is just a broad meaningless goal dangled out in the distance to give you some stupid context for why you are in this world. And while you're there you get to experience everything their made up world has to offer and then get around to saving it if you have the time. (It's what I didn't like about Dragon Age 2 the world wasn't in peril so I kept wondering, if they don't need a hero who the hell is this Hawke guy supposed to be?)

The extra stuff is the back bone of Bioware games (oddly enough) and if none of it matters then... uh... none of it mattered... if they're not going to acknowledge the side stuff then all we're left with is the stupid Reaper invasion and the Reaper invasion is stupid. I've started repeating my self I'm going to go now.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Can you tell me what Mass Effect 3 did right? Like anything it did that was good, Because I've played it through 6 times now and have found maybe 3 minutes of "acceptable" or "good" things in this 50 hour game.

Can you tell me why you've played a 50 hour game 6 times if you don't like it at all?

I can!

I already had multiple Shepards who made different choices over the first 2 games (And had different survivors of the suicide mission) I was checking to see if anything changed based on the choices you made in the first two games.

So that's why I played it so much.

I didn't finish DA2 once. I stopped mid way because I didn't care for it.

Are you telling me you dont like it, but didn't have the sense to stop 6 times?

I dont even know where to begin with that...

You either have to little sense or to much spare time

A lot of people are stunned by this comment...
One of my responses explained it a lot better.

I played the first 2 games 8 times (Because I loved them) So going in to ME 3 I had 8 unfinished Shepard stories.

And my first playthrough lined up with some of the stupid ret-cons (EG I actually picked Udina for the council)
It wasn't until my second playthrough that I realized that everything was fucked up (EG I made every opposite decision from my first playthrough and everything still happened the same)

My other 4 were to see how the game was effected by people dying during the suicide mission.
As it turns out, not very much at all.

So I may have wasted my time but there was a point to all this.

 

[shrekfan246]

well that's all good.

I get too invested for my own good most of the time. So I probably enjoy things a deeper level than you do, but the flip side is that this happens and I play a shit game 6 times in a row just to make sure it is all shit.

I couldn't imagine Mass Effect with out the "extra stuff" if all there was in Mass Effect were

Mass Effect: Go to Noveria, Feros, Virmire, and Ilos, kill Saren.

It would have been boring. All the stuff that sticks with me is the stuff in the first Citadel section and the beginning of the Noveria part and talking to my squad in between missions

Mass Effect 2 I thought was only "extra stuff" the main story was encapsulated in 4 out of like 30 missions.
The main story was nothing to me I was like "Reaper invasion? Big whoop, let's go see what Garrus is calibrating today. Let's go see if Kaiden has any more angstey stories. Let's go see if Jacob is...uh... still black?"

The Reaper invasion, the Dark Spawn, any Bioware story is just a broad meaningless goal dangled out in the distance to give you some stupid context for why you are in this world. And while you're there you get to experience everything their made up world has to offer and then get around to saving it if you have the time. (It's what I didn't like about Dragon Age 2 the world wasn't in peril so I kept wondering, if they don't need a hero who the hell is this Hawke guy supposed to be?)

The extra stuff is the back bone of Bioware games (oddly enough) and if none of it matters then... uh... none of it mattered... if they're not going to acknowledge the side stuff then all we're left with is the stupid Reaper invasion and the Reaper invasion is stupid. I've started repeating my self I'm going to go now.

Well now, I don't really know anything to say to rest of your post so I'm mostly going to just focus on this section. I understand what you're saying, I do.

I agree that the "extra stuff" is pretty much what makes a Bioware game, because the main stories are almost always generic "You must save the world" stock plot-lines. But I suppose my stance is exemplified by this line of yours:

I get too invested for my own good most of the time. So I probably enjoy things a deeper level than you do, but the flip side is that this happens and I play a shit game 6 times in a row just to make sure it is all shit.

I enjoy the extra stuff. Believe me, I do. That's what makes a game like Mass Effect stick with me like it has. But I don't really get invested in the game. I don't strictly follow the continuity, I don't examine it to find retcons, hell, I'm not even that bothered by tired old cliches so long as they're presented well enough.

It's a big part of the reason why I can never get interested in comic books. I'm just not that interested in the canon. I admire Mass Effect for how they managed to tie three games over five years together the way they did, and however cheap or like a cop-out it may have seemed, they did at least attempt to give explanations to things like Anderson abandoning his position and giving it to Udina so in the end it wasn't really a big deal for me. Besides, I got to shoot Udina, so I was fine in the end.

Really, I suppose it all does seem to boil down to you getting more invested in it than I do. I love a decent story in a game, but I'm more concerned with having fun than experiencing a story. The story can contribute to that fun factor, sure, after all I don't think I would've enjoyed Portal 2 nearly as much as I did if it were entirely just about portal-platforming. But the story isn't really why I'm playing the game. Which might seem a bit hypocritical, considering how often I praise the Metal Gear Solid series. But even then, while the stories of those games are a large part of why I enjoy them so much, the bigger reason is because I find the stealth-action gameplay to be immensely fun and satisfying.

EDIT: I may have phrased that last bit a little poorly... I'm not implying you don't play a game to have fun, so please don't misconstrue that as what I'm saying. I'm saying that I think I don't get as much enjoyment out of an intricate story as it appears that you do.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I'll forgive them when I play one of their games that I can honestly say is excellent.