Tumbler's forum posts

#1 Posted by Tumbler (161 posts) -

@Undeadpool said:

@Tumbler: Not sure why I got a response to this, but to accuse Bioware of "not caring" about their 7 year-old game franchise is ludicrous. Now I don't know whether to place the blame on EA or them, but frankly that ending was pure high science fiction. The kind the fans CLAIMED to be clamoring for (instead of "some CoD bullshit). It was exactly in the same vein as Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Harlan Ellison (ESPECIALLY that last one).

I think your comment was at the top and I just hit reply, didn't mean for it to be directed at you. I'm not mad that the events of the ending, I can accept the whole sacrifice, no happy ending thing. But the way they combined created everything seems like they just gave up and said, we're done, this is what they get.

"If they don't like well fuck them. You got that movie of the ship, ok good just combine that with those two shots of them turning around, then take that crashed ship scene...it isn't done? Do I look like I give two fucks, use it. And that video of the stuff blowing up across the galaxy, make that green red and blue, ok, well this needs something else...hey grab that pic of those two looking up at the planets, yeah scan that and put this voice over on it. "Hey you, get in front of this mic and read this.

Boom, done, that is how you make video games people!"

#2 Posted by Tumbler (161 posts) -

For many, though, those final moments were everything.

I think this is the issue at hand. Those final moments to me...they were nothing. Literally nothing. I feel like Bioware never made an ending. They had a few clips ready, so they grabbed some thread and stitched it together rather than create an ending for the series. I assume because of pressure to ship the product, but really it feels more like they just don't give a shit about the fans. They don't think this Universe, the characters, the fans deserve an ending...at least not for the $60 in question.

To me, this is the issue. They delivered an incomplete game for $60 and don't care if you're upset. You can call that thing stitched onto the side of this game an ending but you're lying to yourself. If you buy the game then this is all ok. If you complain about it I don't think it matters. The only way to object to this kind of thing is to either get your money back (if you can) or not buy the game in the first place. My time machine isn't working right now so I only see one option.

Hold the line.

#3 Posted by Tumbler (161 posts) -

Wow! I'm in the process of returning ME3 and I thought this was a special exception. I'm already an amazon customer for life but I can't say enough good things about these guys. And thank you giant bomb for discovering this, you've earned my membership for another month!

#4 Edited by Tumbler (161 posts) -

@nohthink said:

I was one of those people who were confused about Estimated Military Strength(EMS, the third number) and Total Military Strength(TMS, the top number).

I thought I got the best ending because I had over 6000 TMS(with 0 hours of multiplayer). The common conception was that you need to have "something" over 5000 to see the best ending.

According to many furiously frustrated people, TMS is not the number that determines the ending. In fact, the number that matters is EMS and in order to get that number higher than 5000, you MUST play the multiplayer.

So I went back to check my number. I have played some multiplayer after I fnished the game so my numbers were 6000 TMS, 70 something percent of Galactic Readiness and 4945 EMS, which mean I did not get the best ending according to these people.

I'm not trying to make people angry or anything like that. I just want to clarify this issue because obviously a lot of people, including me, are confused about this.

I searched around and concluded this; you need to have over 5000 EMS to get the ending. I have not re-watched the Quick Look yet but I'm going to ASSUME Jeff got 6000 TMS NOT EMS.

From all these researches, I have reached one horrifyingly grim conclusion; you MUST play the multiplayer to get the "best" ending(even though it sounds like all endings look the same more or less).

That is my conclusion but I wanted to ask you guys to clarify this(and I really hope I'm wrong).

Is it possible to have EMS over 5000 without playing any of the multiplayer?

Or...., and I hope this is not true, was BioWare lying when they said you don't need to play the multiplayer to get the best ending?

From what I understand the only difference with the "best" ending and everything else is a quick 10 second clip where someone, probably commander shepard, is under some rubble and takes a breath. It means nothing and isn't even worth working to get. The endings are the same no matter what you do. Does it even matter if Shepard is alive? Assuming that the mass effect relays blew up in some way that doesn't kill everyone then...what? You've got to forge a new civilization that combines all these races? Bah, the ending is stupid. It's sad to see them throw some trash at us like that. The franchise deserved better but I guess they could see all the pre-orders and said, "Fuck it, slap a sticker on it and call it down. Let's start making DLC!"
#5 Posted by Tumbler (161 posts) -

@pyrodactyl said:

@Tumbler said:

So what do you think about the game?

I'd say ''all signs'' are the ending and the fetch quests. The rest is very good. Better than ME2 even

I definitely don't see this as better than ME2. I just hit a milestone in the game where the content has improved a ton. The missions prior to this point seemed like combat missions using the MP maps. Having played a lot of MP I was really getting frustrated that most of the combat/missions seemed so similar to playing that. Once I hit this milestone the game suddenly changes and now I'm doing missions that feel like I'm actually going somewhere. The levels are now more about a journey from beginning to end rather than fighting waves of enemies in a tiny space.

It's a very good game but it's still a huge step down from ME2. I'm looking forward to getting to the end just so I can have a complete picture of the whole thing. There is so much right here, so much that is awesome, but still so much that feels disappointing. I believe I've been playing for 20 hours and I've added 2 people to my available crew I can take on missions!? I have 4 people total and only one is a new character from this game. Bah, I guess James is new, he's the marine from the very beginning, it's annoying I even have him in that list, can't I shoot that guy?

I'm very curious to start a new game because I feel like there are a lot more squad-mates to use that have just died off in the past. How many squad-mates do you have?

#6 Posted by Tumbler (161 posts) -

I love this idea. The whole reason we're in this debate is because EA wants to make a couple more bucks off gamers. If they see those bucks going to charity that will really shut them up. The complaint of gamers feeling entitled holds little water when you see those same gamers go drop money on something they do like. Gamers have money and like spending it on things they like. If EA wants that money then make something gamers will like. This could be your money EA.

We should call this project $10! Give $10 to charity instead of EA!

#7 Posted by Tumbler (161 posts) -

@Quarters said:

I am disappointed in how they talk about it. I don't take issue with the fact that they have problems with the game, but I just hate how they go on for twenty minutes about specific details that they utterly despise, and then gloss over everything great in the game with, "I mean, yeah, I liked parts of the game". Just wish there was a little more balance. Then again, that just kind of applies to their talks on games in general. They always seem to just be super negative, unless it's something indie/quirky.

I thought Jeff was extremely polite talking about it. It is a big deal in the gaming industry, Mass Effect 2 is easily one of my favorite games of this generation, it's a pinnacle of gaming. And ME3 has all the signs of being pushed out before it was done and the franchise not being respected by the publisher. I can't imagine Bethesda treating fans of Skyrim or Fallout this way and it's stunning that EA / Bioware will.

#8 Posted by Tumbler (161 posts) -

@laserbolts said:

@Tumbler said:

Don’t hate day one DLC, hate not getting your
money’s worth.

Aren't those the same thing? Day One DLC is always garbage. That is why people complain about it being there to begin with. Why are you making garbage to go along with an otherwise great game? And why are you lying to us about this being a totally separate project when you made this with the rest of the game and simply want to sell it separately. Strike at Karkland was DLC created after BF3? You're telling me Wake Island wasn't built during the normal development of the game? Karkland, the most popular map for BF2...that was just going to be extra? It's beginning to stink too much not to speak up. These companies need to just be honest and say, "Hey guys, we know you really want this game so we're going to only include a portion of it when you buy the game at retail and then other parts you'll need to pay extra for. We're trying to make the most money possible so I think you'll agree this is the best way to do it."

No I don't think they are the same thing. In Mass Effect 3 for instance I played through it without the dlc and it felt like a full experience to me well worth my 60 bucks. Not saying that it doesn't happen but that is what you should base your judgement on day one DLC on, did the final product feel like it was missing something or not? Does it suck that I didn't get more mass effect 3 for 60 bucks? Sure I guess but it certainly didn't feel lacking even with that fucking ending.

It seems a lot like a car dealership going around and ripping the hub caps off their cars. You're still satisfied with your purchase of the car right? Well then nothing to complain about. You can buy the hubcaps if you want to but those are optional. It's a poor way to treat your customers. Maybe we'll just take your radio out too. I mean look how great a value this car is! It's still a great diving experience. And power windows/ door locks, well we'll just remove this little tiny switch that makes them work...ok now you can just manually roll them up and down. Still a great experience!

They're just going to keep going.

I'd rather buy a car that has all those things included and then the company behind it actually makes additional features to add to the car. Tinted windows, allow wheels, accessories on the outside of the car in addition to the core product. Game companies seem to be going the opposite direction. They don't want to make any more game than absolutely necessary so they "make a car and then start looking for things they can pull off."

#9 Posted by Tumbler (161 posts) -

@whyareyoucrouchingspock said:

I can only guess that the lower pc sales was due to pc users simply jumping on torrents and stealing it.

...? I would guess that the lower sales on the PC reflect that there are less consumers to sell to. The Console version of this game was heavily advertised and was extremely high quality despite the interface being very complicated. (ie designed for the pc) It was an outstanding game on the consoles and the pc which is why it sold well in both places. I bought the game of the year edition later on and was blown away by the quality. (360) An outstanding game. A ton of content. I know a lot of pc gamers don't have a high opinion of it on the consoles but I would assume the higher sales on the consoles have to do with it reaching that mass market audience very well.

#10 Posted by Tumbler (161 posts) -

Don’t hate day one DLC, hate not getting your money’s worth.

Aren't those the same thing? Day One DLC is always garbage. That is why people complain about it being there to begin with. Why are you making garbage to go along with an otherwise great game? And why are you lying to us about this being a totally separate project when you made this with the rest of the game and simply want to sell it separately. Strike at Karkland was DLC created after BF3? You're telling me Wake Island wasn't built during the normal development of the game? Karkland, the most popular map for BF2...that was just going to be extra? It's beginning to stink too much not to speak up. These companies need to just be honest and say, "Hey guys, we know you really want this game so we're going to only include a portion of it when you buy the game at retail and then other parts you'll need to pay extra for. We're trying to make the most money possible so I think you'll agree this is the best way to do it."