OH GOD BIOWARE WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU DONE

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by Liz

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the US, but in the US the law is "fuck the consumer."

Then good on Amazon for not being a stupid cock company that shits on the consumer.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Marc v4.0

Then good on Amazon for not being a stupid cock company that shits on the consumer.

And people whine at me about cherry picking.

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by shiney

And regarding the actual ending, ultimately I don't recall seeing a press release wherein Bioware explicitly stated "there will be a super happy ending". Consumer dissatisfaction is limited, otherwise there is nothing stopping a consumer, ever, ever from returning every single thing they have bought or used under the pretense that they were dissatisfied in the aftermath. This is one of those situations where bad PR is about as harsh as it will get for the creators because, from a legal standpoint, disappointment over the culmination of a story or plot is insufficient to obtain or request actual fiscal compensation or reimbursement.

Casey hudson, pretty specifically said player action would have real effects on the ending, which is patently a lie. You have very little effect at all on the ending and all of them can be achieved pretty much regardless of how you play the game, this is where much of the anger comes from because the game was advertised as actually taking into account your actions when it doesn't.

Much of the ME3 story in general trvialises your actions in the previous games by basically performing a palet/character swap in 'insert plot line here'

basically regardless of which characters die etc in previous games they are simply replaced by some one else with little to no change in how the story progresses afterwards most of the changes simply raise or lower your war assets and doesn't change how the game plays out at all, basically butterfly effect from different decisions were promised to have profound effects in ME3 and they change nothing.

Edit:

Originally Posted by shiney

e for kresh: Even if it's illogical. Or whatever. They didn't guarantee their comsumers a sensible ending to a story, it was possibly implied, or considered an expectation of the customer, but probably not part of the actual sales pitch. So people spent their cash to buy a product that was a video game, and played the whole game, and got the satisfaction of 20 hours or however long it is, and then because the end was weird that invalidates the purchase agreement and they get a full refund? I seriously can't agree with that. That is a dangerous argument.

Surely the answer to this is don't lie to your customers, not customers don't deserve a refund for being deceived.

[stefan]

Originally Posted by shiney

And regarding the actual ending, ultimately I don't recall seeing a press release wherein Bioware explicitly stated "there will be a super happy ending". Consumer dissatisfaction is limited, otherwise there is nothing stopping a consumer, ever, ever from returning every single thing they have bought or used under the pretense that they were dissatisfied in the aftermath. This is one of those situations where bad PR is about as harsh as it will get for the creators because, from a legal standpoint, disappointment over the culmination of a story or plot is insufficient to obtain or request actual fiscal compensation or reimbursement.

except that it has nothing to do with the ending being a downer and more to do with the fact that the nature of the ending (an A, B, C choice) is Exactly what Hudson repeatedly promised in several high-profile interviews that the ending would not be.

I mean, this is not a matter of "the ending was shit I want my money back," this is a case of ordering a cheesesteak, saying "I don't like mushrooms, are there any on the steak?" and the guy making it repeatedly assures you there will not be any mushrooms of any sort on the steak in any capacity whatsoever, and when you finally get it you find a shitload of mushrooms tucked under the meat.

only in this case the analogy would continue that when you went to complain that you were assured of the absence of mushrooms, everyone else in the restaraunt calls you a whiny spoiled little bitch with an entitlement complex, because how dare you try to say that the chef should compromise his vision in the face of your dislike of mushrooms.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Sifright

Casey hudson, pretty specifically said player action would have real effects on the ending, which is patently a lie. You have very little effect at all on the ending and all of them can be achieved pretty much regardless of how you play the game, this is where much of the anger comes from because the game was advertised as actually taking into account your actions when it doesn't.

You're actions do matter to the extent that you gain war assets and such and that affects what options are available. To delve into spoilers, there's the example of the Rachni queen, who if you didn't save her in ME1 is actually a Reaper pawn who will appear to raise your war assets yet actually detract from them.

Your choices matter. Your choices from previous games matter. They might not matter as much as they should, and they might not matter in the way that you want, but they do matter.

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by shiney

And regarding the actual ending, ultimately I don't recall seeing a press release wherein Bioware explicitly stated "there will be a super happy ending".

Far more people are hand-waving the issue away by saying that people are just butthurt over the lack of a happy ending than people actually making that complaint.

As has been said a few times now just in this discussion, the promised it wouldn't be a...let us say Deus Ex:HR ending. They specifically cited HR and the push-button ending, and said that wouldn't be where they were taking the ending at all.

They took the ending straight there, and they actually took it there long before they ever started telling us they wouldn't. It was a pre-meditated deceit that was far beyond just being paid to talk up the game and make things sound better than they are. It was a straight lie.

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by Liz

You're actions do matter to the extent that you gain war assets and such and that affects what options are available. To delve into spoilers, there's the example of the Rachni queen, who if you didn't save her in ME1 is actually a Reaper pawn who will appear to raise your war assets yet actually detract from them.

Your choices matter. Your choices from previous games matter. They might not matter as much as they should, and they might not matter in the way that you want, but they do matter.

No they don't because regardless of how you play getting 5k effective war score is piss easy if you play any multiplayer at all so the choices the player makes doesn't effect the ending.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Sifright

No they don't because regardless of how you play getting 5k effective war score is piss easy if you play any multiplayer at all so the choices the player makes doesn't effect the ending.

The player chooses to play multiplayer.

With full knowledge of the effects it will have!

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by shiney

e for kresh: Even if it's illogical. Or whatever. They didn't guarantee their comsumers a sensible ending to a story, it was possibly implied, or considered an expectation of the customer, but probably not part of the actual sales pitch. So people spent their cash to buy a product that was a video game, and played the whole game, and got the satisfaction of 20 hours or however long it is, and then because the end was weird that invalidates the purchase agreement and they get a full refund? I seriously can't agree with that. That is a dangerous argument.

I don't believe they advertised a logical ending but they advertised a cohesive game that applied your actions and created consequences for those actions. Upon arriving at the end of the game you are not given a result depending on your actions, you're just told to hit one of three buttons that makes the ending of the game happen. After which, a colorful beam of light (Which your button choice has selected) will go and do its thing ending the game.
You don't find out what happens to anyone you helped, you don't get told the effects of this action or anything. That's it. You see the light go out, a few minor things change and then a screen pops up telling you "That's the end of the game! Look out for some DLC coming soon!"


This is directly contradictory to what has been advertised. I can accept the rest of this being subjective values toward the product or something they just never mentioned but was oh so heavily implied. But as has been said the man specifically and directly said this wouldn't be the case.
Whats more, he said that after the ending had been written out. It was a purposeful bold faced lie.

[stefan]

Originally Posted by Liz

You're actions do matter to the extent that you gain war assets and such and that affects what options are available. To delve into spoilers, there's the example of the Rachni queen, who if you didn't save her in ME1 is actually a Reaper pawn who will appear to raise your war assets yet actually detract from them.

Your choices matter. Your choices from previous games matter. They might not matter as much as they should, and they might not matter in the way that you want, but they do matter.

Every single possible path you can take in the game will end the same way. Entering the final battle with as many allies dead as possible and the minimum War Assets still results in the same ending sequence as entering with max war assets, namely a variable-tinted explosion that destroys the mass relays and possibly the Reapers.

despite any choice you could possibly make in the game, it does.

not.

matter.

every road leads to the same conclusion.

I mean, fuck, a piece of shit GTA ripoff named True Crime managed to dodge this problem by having a branching path with mutliple possible ends at several points in the plot, and that game was absolutely terrible and is several years old.