ME3 was the end of Bioware for me, I will never buy another game from them.

so ads mashed up to make it almost a story using the ME3 theme? god i hope this doesnt get past beggars canyon... isnt there a rule against self plugs?

"Undeserved Profit"? Pretty sure no one has ever been forced to buy things from them. I'm not sure if he's insinuating they've committed some type of fraud, but from the context of the video I think he's making a value judgement.

The idea that Steam is a small player, 100% squeaky clean and all about the customer? Well, they're a damn-sight better than most of their competitors, but I point you to their allowance of regional pricing hikes as one example (see the Australian store). As for their size, Steam sales equate to approximately 70+% of all digital sales, I think they're gonna be okay next to Origin.

BTW, no one has forced anyone to use Origin. As much as I want to play BF3, ME3, etc., I've managed to go without buying games released on it (and that doesn't mean pirating them either). If it's really a problem for you, show some self control.

For that matter, if you don't agree with their treatment of workers, there's another reason not to use their products.

Vote with your wallets, look elsewhere for your entertainment. There's a veritable Golden-Age of independent games going on all around you!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'video games, instakills, BF3, COD, Halo, ME3, Bond, HL2, Mario' to 'video games, instakills, BF3, COD, Halo, ME3, Bond, HL2, Mario, corridor digital' - edited by lucky760

That wasn't meant to be a comprehensive explanation of everything wrong with the ending, just one part. (MASSIVE spoilers to follow)

Also, when you say "Reapers prune only the few most advanced species in order to save less advanced organic life", save them from what, exactly? Synthetics? And Reapers are what, exactly? Synthetics?

Aside from the circular reasoning, it's also based on a premise that is at the very least debatable: the created will always rebel against their creators. I got to that conversation having brokered peace between the Geth and the Quarrians. Why wasn't it even an option for Shepard to question whether this was some iron law of the universe? Why is the Catalyst assuming peace between organics and synthetics is impossible? Why was it impossible for any ending to leave the Geth and Quarians both physically the same, and independent? Why wasn't it possible for Shepard to be annoyed about this?

Moreover, why kill organics to prevent robot uprisings? Why not have reapers wipe out synthetic races if/when they start to rebel, rather than wiping out organics before they can build synthetics?

If the Reapers are really saviors of the galaxy, why do they shoot first and ask questions never? If being converted into a husk is really a form of ascension, why not try to convince races to volunteer? Why not stick around for thousands of years to persuade us, if necessary? For that matter, why make this be some sort of every 50K year thing? Why not just make ascension into Reaper form a part of galactic culture, a reward given to races who've advanced far enough to warrant it?

But my biggest problem is that we don't really get to see any kind of real consequence of that final choice. All three endings are virtually indistinguishable, and there's nothing about the ending that reflects the choices you've made along the way, not even the ones from ME3. There's no real resolution for any of your crewmates either. I'd like to know what happens to Garrus, Liara, Tali, etc. after it's all over. "Stranded on a strange jungle planet" wasn't what I was looking for, either.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^NetRunner:
http://markel.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/f3p6x.jpg

That's stupid. Reapers prune only the few most advanced species in order to save less advanced organic life throughout the galaxy. Sounds like whoever made that was dozing off during the conversations with the catalyst.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^NetRunner:
Yeah, defeating the reapers with a group rock session with your crew would've been a more sensible & satisfying conclusion.
>> ^thyazide:
Still a better ending that mass effect 3.


There's nothing wrong with ME3's ending.


http://markel.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/f3p6x.jpg

>> ^NetRunner:

Yeah, defeating the reapers with a group rock session with your crew would've been a more sensible & satisfying conclusion.
>> ^thyazide:
Still a better ending that mass effect 3.



There's nothing wrong with ME3's ending.

>> ^Payback:

I noticed ME3 is going for $80. 80 fucking American fucking dollars. Not fucking likely.


In what country? In America the most you could pay for it is $60. And on Green Man Gaming right now it's $48.

>> ^Auger8:

Let the games speak for themselves if your game is really worth paying $80 bucks like ME3 than people will realize that from the demo.



A slight problem with that is an awful lot of games now clock in at the 6-8 hour mark. A decent size demo would cut that by an hour and suddenly people are paying £40 for 5 hours of new content.

Here's my problem with modern game developers, back in the day if I wasn't sure whether or not I wanted to drop $40 or $50 bucks on a game I had only read hype about and never played. I just went online or bought a copy of PC Gamer and got the demo disc or downloaded a demo of the game, problem solved if I like the demo enough to finish it and want more I would go out and buy the full game. Then devs started whining that demo's cost too much money to produce which is total BS and they stopped doing game demos almost all together, that when I said f*ck it I'll just pirate my full version demo and and if I really like the game I might buy it for the DLC or the multiplayer like Battlefield 3 where you can't play the online portions on the the pirated versions.

Take the hint devs release demo's of your games so people don't feel like they wasted a good chuck of their hard earned cash of a piece of sh*t game like Duke Nukem Foerver. Let the games speak for themselves if your game is really worth paying $80 bucks like ME3 than people will realize that from the demo. Valve has the right idea piracy is completely a service problem not some delinquents idea of sticking it to the man. People just want to know that they are getting their money's worth, why do you think movies have trailers. I miss the old days of Doom when you got the entire first episode free and then if you liked it you paid for the other two. Quit blaming piracy on the little guy when Big Games are just trying to milk every last horse armor dollar out of their fan base. And for god sakes quit releasing games chock full of bugs and then 6 months down the line fix them to the point the game should have been in the first place like Skyrim, I'm glad I waited till recently to buy that game or the UI bugs would have made me chuck it through the first available window.

Sorry I'm ranting I'll shut up now but for god sakes devs think about your fan base we pay your freakin salaries after all!!!!!

>> ^Payback:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Peroxide:
Nowadays with the money in my budget I do the best to go to the movies, shows, and buy the media that I actually like.
Before access to the internet I can recall too many bad memories of coming home with CDs and DVDs that I thought I would love, and then ended up being really upset that I had purchased them.

Laziness did it for me. Stealing games is just to hard compared to downloading it on steam. When I was a kid, driving to the store was harder than just downloading it (and it was also free). I would wager that a large majority of people wouldn't pirate if the copyright holders offered their content in the right way. I like the way valve put it, "Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem". Not always true, some cheap thief's out there, but I know I have bought more games via steam and more books via amazon then I did before them.

I noticed ME3 is going for $80. 80 fucking American fucking dollars. Not fucking likely.


Great post then great reply. I think it's a service problem and a price problem, steam does well because they do good deals. Fact.

I see a game, it looks good, but i've been stung so many times i'm tempted not to try. Then i see it's worth 4.99, and it's completely worth the purchase. 40 pounds for a game i may or may not like and may or may not be able to return at my own expensive of time and effort is an absolute joke. Especially modern day games. Sorry, that's how i see it. Not that i pirate, i just play indie games and get the right games.

Valve so far are the company to release games that i would admit i've had about £150 worth of fun from, and in retrospect i'd have happily paid that for the game. How often can you say that with the £40 titles?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Peroxide:
Nowadays with the money in my budget I do the best to go to the movies, shows, and buy the media that I actually like.
Before access to the internet I can recall too many bad memories of coming home with CDs and DVDs that I thought I would love, and then ended up being really upset that I had purchased them.

Laziness did it for me. Stealing games is just to hard compared to downloading it on steam. When I was a kid, driving to the store was harder than just downloading it (and it was also free). I would wager that a large majority of people wouldn't pirate if the copyright holders offered their content in the right way. I like the way valve put it, "Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem". Not always true, some cheap thief's out there, but I know I have bought more games via steam and more books via amazon then I did before them.


I noticed ME3 is going for $80. 80 fucking American fucking dollars. Not fucking likely.

I will say this though, since ME2 disappointed me, I haven't really followed ME3 at all so aside from watching the trailers...very little has been spoiled for me so maybe I'll actually get to be surprised.

I'm eager to play this, all I'm really saying is that ME2 left a sour note in my stomach because of how they made into more of a shooter and less of an RPG and the whole Collector plotline and the hybrid Reaper seemed dumb to me. I thought the mix of shooter/rpg they had in ME1 was perfect. Sure things needed to be tweaked, but not completely redesigned.

I think the game systems change between 1 and 2 didn't allow for a similar system, and thus the level 1 reset. ME2 and ME3 are closer, so it starts you out where you left off from ME2, pretty much.

Also, this might help you - http://social.bioware.com/project/8005/
>> ^VoodooV:

The only thing you get to keep across the games is your decisions. Many of which I had forgotten from when I played ME1. Sure I remembered the big stuff, but then you'd get an NPC from one of the more forgettable missions and it's just....uhh...ok.
And yes I know they gave an in game explanation for it, but still, for me it just cheapens it going from a level 60 character in ME1 back to level 1 in ME2
>> ^CrushBug:
>> ^VoodooV:
The Reapers are supposed to be this super hyper-advanced threat that has wiped out entire civilizations on multiple occasions, but simply because Shep gathers a big enough fleet that will magically take them down? Bull.
[snip]
What I really wanted was a game similar to the whole Pool of Radiance trilogy back in the day where your characters really did truly continue from game to game and not start over like they do in ME.

For the first part, I think once you play the game, it will make more sense.
For the second, I would like to hear more about what you mean. Characters import from game to game. You have the option to make certain changes like class and appearance, but everything else comes across. I am probably just missing something in what you are saying.