truckington

Why remove 100% of the benefits of the DRM instead of shifting the DRM specifically to the optional stuff? Like keep the family share for digital games exactly like it was but add an always online/24hr check in only to consoles actively using games through the family share? I don't see how people could complain about it if they did that, and it keeps one of the, potentially, coolest features they announced for the One originally...

Backwards compatibility was a contributing factor to the PS3's terrible launch. I know people apparently love it, but it is a nightmare to implement on modern systems. There are basically only two choices for it: include the actual full hardware of the previous generation or emulate it.

The first is part of the reason the PS3 launch price was so high, as they included a real PS2 in every system for backwards compatibility. It was also the very first feature they cut from the system when they need to lower the price of the PS3. Hardware has only gotten more complicated over time too. Including a ps3 inside the ps4 would massively increase the physical size of the console, the complexity of the hardware, the manufacturing costs, the thermal design, everything. No one wants to cripple the life of the entire console so you can play ps3 game for the first few months then never care about backwards compatibility again (which seems to be the case for most people). And the second method is just plain impossible. Software emulation is extremely taxing. Generally requiring orders of magnitudes more raw power than the target system to even come close to properly emulate.

There is no magical "well it should have it" option. You either massively increase the price and complexity of the PS4 or leave it out. I'm very glad they opted to leave it out.

Patrick's random extreme vitriol at things with little to no explanation. Hating on android when none of them appear to have used it recently or at all.

The entire controversy was completely overblown. Books and movie get their endings changed and edited all the time, even after release. Other games have already had their endings altered by post-release patches before this. It really wasn't the "AMG TEH END OF VIDJA GAEM ART" that people make it out to be. Such a huge fuss over such a insignificant event.

And you go into that downward spiral. Years later, the truth of the matter is, the people who hated it then are probably no greater fans of it now, but in the cooling of it all, the cooling of the vitriol, there is some appreciation.

This, to me, is the biggest difference between LOST, Sopranos and Mass Effect 3. When LOST and Sopranos were over, they were over. All the fans knew it was over. Since before the finales aired, they knew it would be over. The Mass Effect universe is not over. Even before Mass Effect 3 came out they were talking about there being more games in the Mass Effect universe and DLC plans for Mass Effect 3. It is one thing to go for an ending with that reaction when your are done completely. It is an entirely other thing to go for an ending with that reaction and then immediately turn around and start asking for more money from the people you just pissed off.

I've now seen a large amount of games journalists and other people completely missing the point about Mass Effect 3's ending controversy. For the billionth and a half time I feel like I have to explain again why so many people hate the ending.

The problem isn't the outcome, it's the method of getting to the outcome. I've now seen/heard several (former) Whiskey Media personalities talking about how everyone is upset because they don't like how the story ends. This is completely missing the point. The current ending of ME3 could be good with the same outcomes if it was executed properly or more completely. Right now it feels like they had a 10 page script for the last scene, then threw away the middle 8 pages with all the exposition and explanation, leaving massive plotholes and far more questions than answers. Most peole aren't saying "change Mass Effect 3's ending to super-happy-fun-times where shepard vomits a rainbow that kills the reapers and lives happily ever after". They saying "maybe it would be better if Mass Effect 3, and the trilogy as a whole ended in a way that made some goddam sense". A way that doesn't actually answers more questions instead of brings up hundreds of new, unanswered ones .

@Zinc said:

I hated the ending to the third Matrix movie, but I didn't sign a petition telling The Wachowskis to film a new ending because I deserved it.

Of course people don't "deserve" a new ending to ME3, only a few people are actually demanding a new ending for free because "they payed $60 for an incomplete game". What most of us are simply saying, is that they ending was terrible, and as it stands right now we are far less interested in playing any further ME3 DLC, other Mass Effect games or possibly even other Bioware games. We're not 'demanding' a new ending, just saying from a business perspective, if Bioware wants to keeps fans happy and actually wanting to play more Mass Effect content, they should probably do something about it

It's not the outcome of the ending so much as how it arrived at said outcome. Why did all my squadmates return to the normandy? why was the normandy in the middle of a jump when the shockwave hit? why did the shockwave make the normandy crash but none of the other space ships in the massive fleets around earth? How does the ending make any sense at all? The god-child, who had never even been hinted at or mentioned before the last 5 minutes of the last game in the trilogy, says he controls the machines and orders them to kill everyone so that people won't make machines that kill everyone? Even if there was a good idea originally, it was extremely poorly implemented to such a degree that whatever meaning was originally intended for the ending is lost in a sea of WTFness.

@Ghostiet said:

@Napalm said:

@Ghostiet said:

@owl_of_minerva said:

It's sad that this is the best they could come up with, for fuck's sake Bioware.

They came up with something else initially. I'll put it in a spoiler:

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

The original motivation for the Reapers was that they were conquering galaxies because they tried to have a big enough, smart enough consciousness to find a way to stop the spread of the Dark Energy before it consumes the universe. They were running out of time, but they've realized that humanity is more genetically diverse than the other races and raced to synthesize them. The ending would have involved assimilating humanity, so the Reapers could have a chance to stop the energy or destroying them, in hope the whole galaxy will find a way to stop it with what little time they have. The general implication was that the Reapers were too arrogant to seek other ways than their own.

That's why there was so much of the "humans are special and more genetically diverse" in Mass Effect 2 and that's why there was foreshadowing about Dark Energy on Haestrom.

Where did you find this out?

In It For The Tank, a user from the Something Awful forums. He worked with the game (I'm not entirely sure what his role was, though) and was the main source of confirmation for the leaks (both the old and new one) and pre-release spoilers, way before Xoisite got the "Space Edition".

Also there are references to it in Mass Effect 2. SPOILER FOR ME2 (No idea how to use the spoiler tag) When you're on the Tali rescue mission they specifically talk about the sun going supernova way too early and it having to do with a build up of dark matter

I'd be fine with even the most cliched normal ending. At least that would make sense. All they had to do was "You beat the reapers, saved the galaxy, hooray!" and it would have been fine...