Mass Effect: Andromeda

Domingo said:
For me, the worst thing about Mass Effect 3 wasn't even the ending. I hated the process of having to procure those stupid war resources either via a mobile app or by padding EA's multiplayer numbers.
They essentially took a beloved franchise and used it as an experiment to push EA's mobile/MP initiatives. The ending(s) were a reflection of that, too. Things were tied to those stupid resources rather than previous game content. I think any ending would probably bother people no matter what (after all they'd been through) but I think we know it could have been better.
Click to expand...
I don't think you had to do any of that. I never did, and I was totally able to finish the game. Was there some sort of special thing you got if you did those things that I totally missed?

I eventually forgave BioWare for the ending after they released a free DLC that fixed my biggest complaint, which was that it just sort of ended without telling the player what happened. The DLC elaborated a little bit, which I concluded was good enough. <shrug>
 
RazorWind said:
I don't think you had to do any of that. I never did, and I was totally able to finish the game. Was there some sort of special thing you got if you did those things that I totally missed?

I eventually forgave BioWare for the ending after they released a free DLC that fixed my biggest complaint, which was that it just sort of ended without telling the player what happened. The DLC elaborated a little bit, which I concluded was good enough. <shrug>
Click to expand...

The original version of the game the military strength affected the ending sequences a lot. You could only get certain ending sequences (kind of the "bad ending") if you didn't either play MP or use the app to get additional war resources. It was a double whammy because the ending sucked and your team got smashed in the process.
The extended version patch that added the additional ending and content actually fixed that a little. You no longer had to do either to get the better sequences and there were barely enough ways to get the required resources via the main game.
 
This was one of the many reasons why I never bother to play a game at release. So many patches and so many DLC's these days.
I don't bother with base games anymore. I have the patience to wait for everything to come out (usually in the form of a director's cut, or complete edition for a single price etc).

Sure, I got to ME:3 over a year "late" but I got the full experience and didn't have to deal with any of the negative consequences that the "beta testers" did and didn't have to pay full price either. Because of the way games are released these days, I'd rather be a super late adopter, rather than an earlier one. It used to be all about cost reasons, but now it's also becoming about how developed the games are as well.
I don't really see the downside of doing this. It's not as if most people on the [H] don't have a massive backlog of games to play anyway. The only things that should generally be bought at launch are heavily multiplayer FPS games (and that's just for community if you're a competitive player), and MMO's (which basically just means WoW expansions at this point). Everything else has zero advantage to being bought early and a bunch of downsides if you do.

I'm watching this EXACT same thing playout in the DX:MD thread. I'm definitely going to wait for all the DLC to drop and the Director's Cut to be released before purchase. I have zero interest in waiting for a half-way decent patch to fix everything to come out while trying to play it now. And for reference, I'm a HUGE fan of the series. It's worth waiting up to another year for a good complete, untarnished, experience. (I mean seriously, DX12 problems, unoptimized drivers, FPS lags and spikes, annoyances with micro-pays, lack of DLC, just every problem in the book, even on a AAA title).
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The only things that should generally be bought at launch are heavily multiplayer FPS games (and that's just for community if you're a competitive player), and MMO's (which basically just means WoW expansions at this point). Everything else has zero advantage to being bought early and a bunch of downsides if you do.
Click to expand...

I'd say anything competitive would probably count. I know it's definitely true for fighting games. You don't want to end up digging yourself out of a 6-month hole while everyone else knows all the matchups, frame data, techniques, etc. MOBAs and such, too.
 
Domingo said:
I'd say anything competitive would probably count. I know it's definitely true for fighting games. You don't want to end up digging yourself out of a 6-month hole while everyone else knows all the matchups, frame data, techniques, etc. MOBAs and such, too.
Click to expand...

Right, I agree with you. But you know when you make posts it's hard to think of every genre, especially if you don't play them. Heck Blizzard's MOBA is free and I've never really bothered. I also just don't play fighting games... since really HS with MvC2.... Slipped my mind. But yes, competitive games was the point I was trying to make.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
This was one of the many reasons why I never bother to play a game at release. So many patches and so many DLC's these days.
I don't bother with base games anymore.

.... The only things that should generally be bought at launch are heavily multiplayer FPS games (and that's just for community if you're a competitive player), and MMO's (which basically just means WoW expansions at this point). Everything else has zero advantage to being bought early and a bunch of downsides if you do.
Click to expand...


I can count on one hand the number of times I couldn't play a game on release day in the past TEN YEARS because something was broken. And one of those would be WoW, another would be D3.
 
RazorWind said:
I don't think you had to do any of that. I never did, and I was totally able to finish the game. Was there some sort of special thing you got if you did those things that I totally missed?
Click to expand...

If you had over 75% Military Resources your Shephard would survive the ending. It was of little consequence since, supposedly, we'll never see him / her again. If our saves are utilized in Andromeda then you might get an honorary mention or equivalent.

The DLC added some story that attempted to soften the blow of the ending, and gave an added sense of closure with your squad mates. The closure was nice, the added story tried to band-aid the glaring plot holes, unsuccessfully imo, but did flesh things out a tad more.

I hated the ending... most intensely, because I loved the series. We achieve a form of unity between the races for the first time, but most of it is tenuous at best. We cure the genophage, find a home world for the Quarians, make peace between them all... and then trap them in the same star system where the only habitatal planet (earth) has been desolated by the Reapers and couldn't house them all even if it wasn't. There are no more mass effect Relays, so travel to another star will take life times, even at FTL speeds. Some how Bioware wants us to believe everyone banded together and made it work. That's B.S. The Kogan alone would have said "screw this" and done what they needed to, to survive. Everything we accomplished for all the races was for naught. It was all for nothing. The ending was a troll for anyone who had actually given a crap about a virtual character in a video game. This is what sent me over the edge.

I'm looking forward to Andromeda, but BioWare has a long way to go to regain my trust as a customer.
 
Last edited:
Yea- the ending was jarring, but the cure the Genophage made me... get everything in my eyes for a bit. I'm sure someone has already posted D20's excellent breakdown of the storyline failure (in about 45 parts), and I really hope someone in BioWare was alerted to it. It's meticulous in it's description of the issues and how they 'broke' the universe and even looks somewhat into the history of production and whatnot. Very much worth a read if you have time to kill (the parts are only a couple of minutes to read 'per the each')
 
st4rk said:
I can count on one hand the number of times I couldn't play a game on release day in the past TEN YEARS because something was broken. And one of those would be WoW, another would be D3.
Click to expand...

I think you entirely missed what I said. Either that or you're cutting down my statement to such a large degree and only talking about such a small portion of it that it is indecipherable.
A "can't see the Forrest for the trees" sort of moment.
 
DWolvin said:
Yea- the ending was jarring, but the cure the Genophage made me... get everything in my eyes for a bit.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I was talking about. We got invested in all the characters, their stories felt real and even close to home at times, and then we are FINALLY able to help them achieve their dreams... only to kill any hope of them, or most the people the love, seeing their dreams. It was l ike the greatest "psych" I'd ever experienced in a story. I was in shock at first, then I choose to wait and see if the DLC would fix things, and it helped, but it didn't return any hope to the characters we'd helped.

Anyway, I just hope they paid attention to the players who elected to give them constructive feedback (instead of lawsuits) and do right by this coming trilogy.

Btw, I'm pretty sure I've read D20's break down, but I'll do a search for it to be sure. Thanks for the heads up.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
I think you entirely missed what I said. Either that or you're cutting down my statement to such a large degree and only talking about such a small portion of it that it is indecipherable.
A "can't see the Forrest for the trees" sort of moment.
Click to expand...

Nope, I got your point loud and clear. I just made a comment that upset you because I called out your hyperbole about all games being broken on release day and to wait a fucking year to buy them. Deus Ex works perfectly fine for me because I'm not trying to run it on a shitty computer, and I am well aware that my 980ti cannot handle MSAA so I disable it.

But go ahead and buy games a year after so you can get a cool discount and they'll be all "patched" and ready to go, I'm sure that blanket is nice and comfy and warm! Maybe grab a cup of milk while you're at it? (y)
 
st4rk said:
Nope, I got your point loud and clear. I just made a comment that upset you because I called out your hyperbole about all games being broken on release day and to wait a fucking year to buy them.
Click to expand...


So you've either masked your inability to understand what I said by attempting to insult me or you really have genuinely missed the mark by that far.

I never said that games were so broken that they could "literally not be played" on day 1. I stated that for me: games are not worth playing on day one because they have too many issues, they are missing too much content, and they aren't worth the headache that both of those problems exhibit. That isn't hyperbolic. That is an opinion based upon how I would prefer my gaming experience to be. And I personally believe that to be a problem in the current state of gaming in general. An opinion that not only I have, but is shared by at least a large portion of the PC gaming public at large and voiced by detractors such as Jim Sterling among others.

You on the other hand clearly would rather play a game because it's "new". In this thread alone some have already mentioned that they don't bother with DLC because they'd rather not go back and play a game for 5 hours of content. Whether you feel that DLC should've been part of the original game or not, I'll leave to you. Me on the other hand consider it something that should have been released at launch. DLC and "buy more" in general should all be available at the original cost of entry. My way of buying and playing games allows me to have what I consider to be "the full experience". I don't have to buy something else, go back and play that content. Or skip it altogether. Generally I consider DLC something that the studio always intended the game to have, but now via the current method of sales sell it out piecemeal to make more money. A practice I consider loathsome.

Needing patches and cleaning up broken drivers are problems that shouldn't exist on day 1. Paying to be a "beta tester" is another problem that shouldn't exist.


st4rk said:
Deus Ex works perfectly fine for me because I'm not trying to run it on a shitty computer, and I am well aware that my 980ti cannot handle MSAA so I disable it.
Click to expand...

Congrats on the 980ti and an "incredible" machine. The way that we make PC gaming make sense is by buying $1000+ worth of video cards (in this case 1080 SLi) everytime a new $60 game comes out. That way we can talk about glorious PC gaming and take a dump on everyone with a lesser computer (which of course you have no idea what I own since I don't try to inflate myself with a massive hardware sig block). The way to make PC gaming make the most amount of sense is by spending more money. Not by expecting games to be optimized or perform properly. How did I ever miss something so obvious? If you wanted me to talk hyperbolically about something. There you go. Now you have an actual target.


st4rk said:
But go ahead and buy games a year after so you can get a cool discount and they'll be all "patched" and ready to go, I'm sure that blanket is nice and comfy and warm! Maybe grab a cup of milk while you're at it? (y)
Click to expand...

Getting to pay less for the game is just a side benefit. Another point that you failed to understand. Saving the money isn't the point. If games were made with all of their DLC upfront and didn't need weeks or months of patching before running properly they'd be worth the $60 at launch. But that hasn't happened in years. Gone are the days in which there was a reasonable expectation that games would work as intended on day 1. In the DX:MD thread alone there is discussion about: DX12 not being ready. Drivers weren't ready. The game isn't optimized. There is expected DLC that will require more money. ATi has one set of problems. nVidia another. There are massive FPS spikes. There is literally pages of this stuff dialoging every set of problems people are having from a performance standpoint on this forum alone. Which if you failed to notice is on high-end hardware just as much as it is on low-end hardware.

In ME:3 there were similar hardware issues, but the DLC was monumentally important. The ending was just one piece of the puzzle. Leviathan was probably the single best mission in the game (in case that didn't read: that's an opinion). As was the Citadel DLC. I bet a lot of early players missed those experiences because they either didn't want to pay extra for it (which once again to be clear, I argue should be free or come with the original game at launch) or they didn't want to get back into a game that they had already beaten and moved past a few months previously.

Yes, you can/could still in a literal way have or had "played those games" at launch. That's the only point you've been able to make clearly. But I would argue that it's not an "enjoyable" way to do so. A point you've missed: twice. Whether it's for missing content reasons or performance reasons or in my case: both.

---

If you disagree, and clearly in this case you do, you can vote with your wallet. That's your prerogative. But you do yourself a disservice by expressing your opinion in a way that feels threatened every time someone voices an opinion that is contrary to yours. So congratulations: you were able to insult someone on the internet. You're one step closer to letting everyone know you're incapable of having a civiil discussion or be able to let people know you have a differing opinion without trying to make everyone feel small to pump yourself up. Go you.
 
Last edited:
Frraksurred said:
The ending was a troll for anyone who had actually given a crap about a virtual character in a video game. This is what sent me over the edge.
Click to expand...
I think they changed the destroy ending in the extended cut that the relays don't actually get vaporized. So they can be reactivated possibly. If you want to believe that. And since they're not going to follow up on that, everyone can believe what they want. My choice is the IT.

But the 4th ending they added in the DLC was really just a troll ending. "you don't like our ending? Fuck you, then you loose"
 
UnknownSouljer said:
So you've either masked your inability to understand what I said by attempting to insult me or you reablah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah in a way that feels threatened every time someone voices an opinion that is contrary to yours. So congratulations: you were able to insult someone on the internet. You're one step closer to letting everyone know you're incapable of having a civiil discussion or be able to let people know you have a differing opinion without trying to make everyone feel small to pump yourself up. Go you.
Click to expand...

You expect me to read that?
 
I liked the multiplayer part, it was fun horde mode. You cant fault a MP that allowed some dood to meet a chick and hookup. I know atleast one couple that first met playing me3 MP.

I wish the servers were still up I sometimes crave it. Which is also a downfault to EA, stop turning off servers you god damn sobs.

The ending was horrible no matter what you choose at the end.

I like the fan made indoctrination theory ending best. Also means I wont know a Shepard me4.

I look forward to Andromeda. ME is an interesting universe.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
...
Click to expand...
You on the other hand clearly would rather play a game because it's "new". In this thread alone some have already mentioned that they don't bother with DLC because they'd rather not go back and play a game for 5 hours of content. Whether you feel that DLC should've been part of the original game or not, I'll leave to you. Me on the other hand consider it something that should have been released at launch. DLC and "buy more" in general should all be available at the original cost of entry. My way of buying and playing games allows me to have what I consider to be "the full experience". I don't have to buy something else, go back and play that content. Or skip it altogether. Generally I consider DLC something that the studio always intended the game to have, but now via the current method of sales sell it out piecemeal to make more money. A practice I consider loathsome.
Click to expand...
Game expansions are not a new thing. And sure sometimes they do feel like they're just ripped from the game and sold separately. But that's not the norm. Many games feel complete without any of the later added DLCs, and most have a completely separate story line. For example DA:I has so much gameplay even without any DLCs that it gives you a full experience regardless. The same is true about FO4, ME2, ME3 too. I don't think the Citadel DLC would've ever been made if not as a DLC or expansion. But it was well worth the investment. Universally condemning DLCs is not a solution to anything, as there are many damn good DLCs out there.

Needing patches and cleaning up broken drivers are problems that shouldn't exist on day 1. Paying to be a "beta tester" is another problem that shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...
Day one patches are not the problem. They're actually a good thing. They allow retail distribution of the game while the game is still being finalized.

Congrats on the 980ti and an "incredible" machine. The way that we make PC gaming make sense is by buying $1000+ worth of video cards (in this case 1080 SLi) everytime a new $60 game comes out. That way we can talk about glorious PC gaming and take a dump on everyone with a lesser computer (which of course you have no idea what I own since I don't try to inflate myself with a massive hardware sig block). The way to make PC gaming make the most amount of sense is by spending more money. Not by expecting games to be optimized or perform properly. How did I ever miss something so obvious? If you wanted me to talk hyperbolically about something. There you go. Now you have an actual target.
Click to expand...
You just seem to be butthurt over not being able to afford the best hardware. Gaming is not a right, it's a privilege. You buy what you can and work with it. If you don't like it, you can always switch to a console so you don't have to worry about "spending 1000$ for every new game" This statement sounds especially ridiculous when the PC market has been so stagnant for years. You can get away with literally not replacing your PC for 3-4 years. I'm not particularly rich since I live in a poor country yet I don't sulk about it. I get what I can get, and when I can. And most of the time I'm able to play AAA games at full detail.
Getting to pay less for the game is just a side benefit. Another point that you failed to understand. Saving the money isn't the point. If games were made with all of their DLC upfront and didn't need weeks or months of patching before running properly they'd be worth the $60 at launch. But that hasn't happened in years. Gone are the days in which there was a reasonable expectation that games would work as intended on day 1. In the DX:MD thread alone there is discussion about: DX12 not being ready. Drivers weren't ready. The game isn't optimized. There is expected DLC that will require more money. ATi has one set of problems. nVidia another. There are massive FPS spikes. There is literally pages of this stuff dialoging every set of problems people are having from a performance standpoint on this forum alone. Which if you failed to notice is on high-end hardware just as much as it is on low-end hardware.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. DX12 is not necessary for getting the full game experience. And they were upfront about it not being ready for launch. Adding new render modes is nothing new. I suppose then Quake wasn't ready when released because they only added opengl support later. And that was 20 years ago! People having performance issues is not a new thing either, just remember Invisible War. How long ago was that? That ran like a turd too when released. I really don't see a new trend here.

If you wanted to game on the PC on the bleeding edge of technology with all eyecandy turned on, you always had to spend a ton of money. But if you were satisfied with an experience that is somewhere in the middle between the consoles and the hi-end gaming PCs then you could do that too.



In ME:3 there were similar hardware issues, but the DLC was monumentally important. The ending was just one piece of the puzzle. Leviathan was probably the single best mission in the game (in case that didn't read: that's an opinion). As was the Citadel DLC. I bet a lot of early players missed those experiences because they either didn't want to pay extra for it (which once again to be clear, I argue should be free or come with the original game at launch) or they didn't want to get back into a game that they had already beaten and moved past a few months previously.
Click to expand...

ME3 already had 30-40 hours of content without any of the DLCs, it was well worth the money. The later DLCs all added enermous value to the game. We're not talking cash grabs with minimal content. They had fully fleshed out storyline with hours of content. That would never have been made if not as expansions. The only exception being "from the ashes" but you got that automatically if you got the deluxe edition of the game, and if you never knew that dlc existed the game still would have felt like a full experience, you'd never have felt it's absence if you didn't know it existed.
Yes, you can/could still in a literal way have or had "played those games" at launch. That's the only point you've been able to make clearly. But I would argue that it's not an "enjoyable" way to do so. A point you've missed: twice. Whether it's for missing content reasons or performance reasons or in my case: both.
Click to expand...
Calling ME3 unenjoyable or ME2 for that matter, without the expansions is just nuts. You don't have a point there. You feeling entitled to get all the DLCs with the base price is not a point. It's a delusion. Sure you can choose to wait out all the dlcs and wait until they're released in one package for a discounted price later. That's your prerogative. But sulking and talking down to those who do pay the full price for games and DLCs feels obnoxious to me.

If you disagree, and clearly in this case you do, you can vote with your wallet. That's your prerogative. But you do yourself a disservice by expressing your opinion in a way that feels threatened every time someone voices an opinion that is contrary to yours. So congratulations: you were able to insult someone on the internet. You're one step closer to letting everyone know you're incapable of having a civiil discussion or be able to let people know you have a differing opinion without trying to make everyone feel small to pump yourself up. Go you.
Click to expand...
You don't even realize how condescending you sound.

I pre-ordered ME3 and had the greatest time with it. Even before the expansions. Later I purchased every single player DLC for it, and they were all well worth the investment. It was a great experience. Especially the discussions I had on ME specific forums about the game and theories and so on. I'd have missed out on all of those if I waited 1.5 years for all content to be available.
 
Aw, they turned off the server? I agree it was a fun bit of multiplayer- I have been hopping back on every now and then when I need to shoot up some baddies... Hope ME:A gets something similar...
 
st4rk said:
You expect me to read that?
Click to expand...

So don't? But if you're going to create arguments on the internets, expect someone is going to use logic and create counterpoints to the nonsense you're spewing.

So this puts you into 1 of 2 categories:

1.) You're a troll that comes in, starts an argument because you have a different opinion and then sticks his fingers in his ears and says: "la la la I can't hear you."

2.) You can't be bothered to have a rational discussion on the internet about anything. And when provided with a differing opinion and offered a discussion despite being insulting you slink away.

Discuss or don't.



===



M76 said:
Game expansions are not a new thing. And sure sometimes they do feel like they're just ripped from the game and sold separately. But that's not the norm. Many games feel complete without any of the later added DLCs, and most have a completely separate story line. For example DA:I has so much gameplay even without any DLCs that it gives you a full experience regardless. The same is true about FO4, ME2, ME3 too. I don't think the Citadel DLC would've ever been made if not as a DLC or expansion. But it was well worth the investment. Universally condemning DLCs is not a solution to anything, as there are many damn good DLCs out there.
Click to expand...

You missed it. I stated DLC should be included under the original purchase cost. Yes the content is wanted. Dicing up a game and removing content to sell it later isn't. Buying it all later in a complete edition is the only solution. So that's what I do. The solution you prefer is already in place. And it has likely zero chance of ever changing at this point. So if this discussion is about "winning", well you already are.

It's not as if the DLC is not in development when the game is. It clearly is. But they choose intentionally to release it piece by piece to make more money off of early adopters. To reiterate: I get it, you're okay with that practice. You're okay with spending money a bunch of times. I'm just not.



M76 said:
Day one patches are not the problem. They're actually a good thing. They allow retail distribution of the game while the game is still being finalized.
Click to expand...

How long have you been gaming? That wasn't a necessary practice before. And it's only necessary now because there is a rush to market. Sure bigger game manufacturers like iD were patching all the way back with Q1, but they had a solid product that offered a complete experience. A lot of the patching was to expand feature set. Such as expanding OpenGL (at a time when Glide was king). Long story short: slow down, release your product later, have it be the way it's supposed to be.



M76 said:
You just seem to be butthurt over not being able to afford the best hardware. Gaming is not a right, it's a privilege. You buy what you can and work with it. If you don't like it, you can always switch to a console so you don't have to worry about "spending 1000$ for every new game" This statement sounds especially ridiculous when the PC market has been so stagnant for years. You can get away with literally not replacing your PC for 3-4 years. I'm not particularly rich since I live in a poor country yet I don't sulk about it. I get what I can get, and when I can. And most of the time I'm able to play AAA games at full detail.

Bullshit. DX12 is not necessary for getting the full game experience. And they were upfront about it not being ready for launch. Adding new render modes is nothing new. I suppose then Quake wasn't ready when released because they only added opengl support later. And that was 20 years ago! People having performance issues is not a new thing either, just remember Invisible War. How long ago was that? That ran like a turd too when released. I really don't see a new trend here.

If you wanted to game on the PC on the bleeding edge of technology with all eyecandy turned on, you always had to spend a ton of money. But if you were satisfied with an experience that is somewhere in the middle between the consoles and the hi-end gaming PCs then you could do that too.
Click to expand...

Irony, I actually didn't full read this block until I had written what was above. The difference you don't seem to notice that "adding features for free" is different than fixing broken day 1 bugs. OpenGL was added because it was a new standard that video card manufactures could utilize. Before that every card manufacturer had it's own rendering scheme. They added a feature for cards that didn't exist before the game was launched. This argument is like saying: well they should have waited on Doom to make the OpenGL version! DX12 existed before the DX:MD launch. It was supposed to be in the game at launch. They only cut it from the launch in order to meet their own self-imposed deadline. That is a far cry from what iD did with OpenGL and GLQuake.

2.) I never said that it was a "right". You seem to have a huge interpretation problem. From the beginning of this line of discussion I've stated the same things over and over (which apparently there is reading comprehension problems over). I buy the games. I play the games. I do so later when they are feature complete and free of a lot of day 1 game disrupting bugs. Apparently you also don't understand hyperbole. Or sarcasm. Or argument structure. st4rk's argument on me not playing games was being based on his perception that I can't afford hardware. Now you've played into it because you can't seem to comprehend that that isn't the issue. I could have 1080 SLi. I could be on a 330M. Or anywhere in the middle. The hardware has nothing to do with my statements.

3.) Quake ran like "a turd" as you say because iD created a game engine that required faster hardware than what was available. iD's engine programming is impeccable, especially in the old days (less so now). It wasn't an optimization issue. It was a pushing the envelope "issue". DX:MD is an optimization issue. There are plenty of engines that look better, do more stuff, and run better. That isn't in dispute. Feel free to argue about it more if you'd like.

4.) Being "upfront" about being feature incomplete (DX12) at launch is a band-aid. If you think it's fine, that's fine. But to me that is releasing a feature incomplete game. One that could be remedied by having more time to put into development. Which guess what? They're doing anyway, but they're doing now that they have your money and not before. If you think that behavior is acceptable (which you do by your statements) great. You've voted with your wallet. I'm free to do the same with mine.



M76 said:
ME3 already had 30-40 hours of content without any of the DLCs, it was well worth the money. The later DLCs all added enermous value to the game. We're not talking cash grabs with minimal content. They were fully fleshed out storyline with hours of content. That would never have been made if not as expansions. The only exception being "from the ashes" but you got that automatically if you got the deluxe edition of the game, and if you never knew that dlc existed the game still would have felt like a full experience, you'd never have felt it's absence if you didn't know it existed.

Calling ME3 unenjoyable or ME2 for that matter, without the expansions is just nuts. You don't have a point there. You feeling entitled to get all the DLCs with the base price is not a point. It's a delusion. Sure you can choose to wait out all the dlcs and wait until they're released in one package for a discounted price later. That's your prerogative. But sulking and talking down to those who do pay the full price for games and DLCs feels obnoxious to me.
Click to expand...

Read what I said at the end. You are literally saying the same thing I am, although standing on a point that it's worth spending the additional cost. Fine. We agree to agree. I don't think it's worth the cost. Nor do I think it makes sense to pay and then pay again. And then pay again. And then again. ME3 had 3-4 DLC's? ME2 the same?

2.) The other part: it's not about the base game being "unenjoyable" it's about missing content that you may not go back to play, spending additional money, and also not getting to play the DLC within the flow of the game if you go back and play it that way. DX:HR probably had the worst DLC in that way, as the directors cut at least allowed the playing within' the flow of the game... something that wasn't possible before then.

Conclusion: You think it's worth spending the money. You find a differing opinion obnoxious. Your point is made.



M76 said:
You don't even realize how condescending you sound.

I pre-ordered ME3 and had the greatest time with it. Even before the expansions. Later I purchased every single player DLC for it, and they were all well worth the investment. It was a great experience. Especially the discussions I had on ME specific forums about the game and theories and so on. I'd have missed out on all of those if I waited 1.5 years for all content to be available.
Click to expand...

If I "sound condescending" it was because I was insulted. Sorry for being retaliatory. But apparently in order to get a point across, one must beat someone over the head with it.

As for the second part, if that is a valuable part of your experience, you are welcome to spend the money. This falls under the "vote with your wallet" portion. Frankly, especially in a single player game, I don't.
 
Last edited:
Why are people so goddamn touchy about this game? You'd think someone came in and shot their dog in the face with the amount of ridiculous outrage against folks who don't think it's going to be 10/10 BEST GAME EVAR.
 
holy crap I see walls of text on this page...are people writing their thesis on Mass Effect?
 
Shadohh said:
I liked the multiplayer part, it was fun horde mode. You cant fault a MP that allowed some dood to meet a chick and hookup. I know atleast one couple that first met playing me3 MP.

I wish the servers were still up I sometimes crave it. Which is also a downfault to EA, stop turning off servers you god damn sobs.

The ending was horrible no matter what you choose at the end.

I like the fan made indoctrination theory ending best. Also means I wont know a Shepard me4.

I look forward to Andromeda. ME is an interesting universe.
Click to expand...

Loved ME3 MP too, are you sure the servers are down though? Unless I am crazy, they appear to still be up.
 
I'm going to have to reinstall and try this weekend, it's been to long since a Banshee scared the $#@%@ outta me... :eek:
 
I really enjoyed the MP of ME3, though I think they lost some of the balance in the end. It really added a lot of flavor to the universe seeing how other species and non-spectres were handling themselves. Really hope they build on it for this round

and fuck those banshees
 
Yep- side note, that scream is a great thing to put on your roommate's phone as a text alert. Until it goes off and her stray cat bolts out of your lap like the end of times is coming... Ow.
 
Multiplayer still works, just tried it out.

I believe what closed was the Bioware forums, on August 26th it seems. But the MP still seems to be chugging along.
 
Origin is having a 50% off sale, including Bioware points. Are these going to be useful for Andromeda / DLC?
Might pick some up.
 
M76 said:
I think they changed the destroy ending in the extended cut that the relays don't actually get vaporized. So they can be reactivated possibly. If you want to believe that.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the DLC edited the ending to show the races banding together to repair the Relays. Which was one of the many "glaring plot holes" because according to the lore, none of them understood the technology or how to replicate it. We relied on the Keepers (another mystery) for that. Suddenly we're advanced alien technology experts with the resources to repair objects made out of materials previously unknown to us.

It was a band-aid, like I said. The laziness of it all just turned me off. It was not the BioWare I had come to know and love.
 
Frraksurred said:
It was a band-aid, like I said. The laziness of it all just turned me off. It was not the BioWare I had come to know and love.
Click to expand...
Yes it was, but it was still more than any other company would be willing to do. So some respect is due. Even if they communicated artistic integrity and such bullcrap, they knew that not all is well. And doing such a large scale change to the ending where completely new scenes were added is something. I don't even know how they pushed that trough EA. "Hey listen we're going to do an improved ending, it'll cost roughly 200k, and noone will pay a dime for it"
 
M76 said:
Yes it was, but it was still more than any other company would be willing to do. So some respect is due. Even if they communicated artistic integrity and such bullcrap, they knew that not all is well. And doing such a large scale change to the ending where completely new scenes were added is something. I don't even know how they pushed that trough EA. "Hey listen we're going to do an improved ending, it'll cost roughly 200k, and noone will pay a dime for it"
Click to expand...

Valid point. And largely why I still retain some excitement for another ME game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M76
like this
and has been pointed out before, if you paid attention to the story of ME2, then you knew going into ME3, it was fucked. For all intents and purposes ME2 dis next to nothing to advance the story line. That left it all on ME3 to do. No way that was going to happen. Given the cards they had to start with, even the original ending was better than could be expected going into it
 
Nimisys said:
and has been pointed out before, if you paid attention to the story of ME2, then you knew going into ME3, it was fucked. For all intents and purposes ME2 dis next to nothing to advance the story line. That left it all on ME3 to do. No way that was going to happen. Given the cards they had to start with, even the original ending was better than could be expected going into it
Click to expand...

This is because they lost their lead writer, Drew Karpyshyn, late in ME2 development before ME3 could be fully written. As a result needed to come up with a new ending. Initially it was going to revolve around munipulating Dark Energy (we heard about this in Tali's ME2 loyalty mission), but that ending never got fully fleshed out and was eventually replaced. Since most of the rest of ME3 had been outlined by that time story changes ended up feeling... disconnected.

It was a bad ending, nothing we can do to alter that, but it's also water under the bridge. Hopefully Andromeda will be the fresh slate they need and they'll show us how much they learned from previous mistakes.
 
People bitching about DLC's are living in the past. Games take 5 years to develop now. It makes sense not to reinvent the wheel and make some DLCs for it.
Bioware games are always good for 40 hours. They are steals entertainment wise at $50-60 (the same price new games have been for 20 years!!!)
Go see a 2 hour movie with popcorn and a soda it will cost close to half that.
What's with the self entitlement kiddies of this generation? No wonder they all wanted Bernie.
 
Frraksurred said:
Initially it was going to revolve around munipulating Dark Energy (we heard about this in Tali's ME2 loyalty mission), but that ending never got fully fleshed out and was eventually replaced. Since most of the rest of ME3 had been outlined by that time story changes ended up feeling... disconnected.

.
Click to expand...

that actually makes a lot of since. There was nothing about the catalyst in terms of the parts found for it, or its design even that suggested it did what its final purpose was. Always wondered how it got from point a to point b so to speak. Actually it makes you wonder if coming up with their 4 selected endings were more difficult than fleshing out that single idea would have been. I don't think it would have been that difficult to bring in various decisions in terms of success similar to the mission checks of ME2
 
MavericK said:
Why are people so goddamn touchy about this game? You'd think someone came in and shot their dog in the face with the amount of ridiculous outrage against folks who don't think it's going to be 10/10 BEST GAME EVAR.
Click to expand...

Because it's not 10/10 best game evar, it's a fucking 100/10 pinnacle of FPS/RPG games.

And I am pretty offended that you thought about someone shooting a dog in the face, wow.
 
Nimisys said:
and has been pointed out before, if you paid attention to the story of ME2, then you knew going into ME3, it was fucked. For all intents and purposes ME2 dis next to nothing to advance the story line. That left it all on ME3 to do. No way that was going to happen. Given the cards they had to start with, even the original ending was better than could be expected going into it
Click to expand...

And this is why I say that within the series ME2 was over rated and ME3 under rated (although very rushed). Yes ME3's ending was odd, but ME2's ending and boss fight were rather bad to. Not to mention most of the story went off into random tangents. The reason ME2 was so popular is because the story was rather simple, mundane and not based much on the overarching plot. And the majority of the science aspects were pulled from the central plot. This allowed the masses to easily identify with it. Certainly an inferior story style, but it did well with the average person. I recall being disappointed about the decision to save the Council or not in ME1... the only notable difference in ME2 is a Turian who works at a shop would talk in a hostile tone to you if you didn't. You'd think that would have had a massive impact in the Citadels organization, the overall politics and relations in the galaxy that would make a difference in the gameplay.

Instead, we got a bunch of missions to run personal errands for what mostly amounted to lunatics. And an ending which revolved around playing as many of those (overall) pointless missions. I'd like the new series to take into account the real story decisions... make your choices count and matter in how the next games play out. Keep the side kick character stories to a minimum.
 
IMO, ME2 popularity revolves around timing. It improved on ME1's gameplay tremendously. ME1 was clunky, repetitious, and tedious. It was beloved because the plot was compelling enough to make you forget how average (maybe even below average) the actual game was. It failed as something turn/stat based and failed as a shooter at the same time. Yet we didn't care because it told a great story you wanted to experience.
ME2's plot was "meh" but the gameplay was so much better that at least it wasn't torture playing the action sequences. We all knew it was a trilogy, so it made for a solid bridge into the finale. As a complete package, it was the best of the 3. Gameplay was solid to good and the plot was good enough. No longer was 1/2 the game worthy of an eyeroll.
ME3 is still my favorite of the 3 to actually play the action sequences of. It was a competent and even a challenging shooter. Like the best of Gears with more depth. Yet it was hampered by everything else plot related. Essentially the opposite of the first game.
 
Flogger23m said:
Instead, we got a bunch of missions to run personal errands for what mostly amounted to lunatics....Keep the side kick character stories to a minimum.
Click to expand...

Those missions were incredibly fun. I really liked getting to know each person inhabiting my ship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top