Well this is disappointing news. I haven't been much into their recent games under EA, but their studios are responsible for a bunch of my all time fav games. Regardless, good luck to them moving forward.
So the options were "show games" or "not show games" and Sony chose to go with "not show games." Really?
Needless to say, nobody cares if a conference is a bit long, so long as what we're getting is tons of good gameplay and trailers for games we want to see. If you're going to show 20-30 minutes worth of Wonderbook and Move footage, then, yeah, people are going to have an issue.
To me, the fact that they chose to cut their focus on the Vita shows an obvious lack of confidence in it right now.
I think a fair number of the people complaining abour scores are being a bit too touchy. I was skeptical about some of scores of the vita's launch lineup here (like Uncharted, Wipeout, and Hot Shots Golf) until I played the games myself. I have a feeling that I'd agree strongly with the review scores if I had the game. As it stands, this is def one of those bargain bin games for me.
So let me get this straight. Changing aspects of a game, or any piece of art for that matter, because the fans/consumers take issue with certain aspects of it completely and utterly destroys it's standing as art from that point on no matter how reasonable and sensible their complaints are. Yet, doing the same exact thing because your publisher doesn't like certain aspects of the same game is perfectly fine and has absolutely no bearing on the final products standing as art whatsoever? That line of thinking isn't consistent at all. If the point of this article is that a piece is either completely, originally, and freely designed by it's creator (in this case the developer, Bioware) or it's simply a product, then Mass Effect, like most other games or popular works, was never art to begin with because changes have to be made all the time that oppose what the developers want to do beacause their publisher(s) don't think that the developers' ideas are popular enough to make the kind of money that they find acceptible. You know what would really be objective? Taking the gamers' complaints, the more sensible ones obviously, seriously and putting out an article with a counter-argument on why Bioware SHOULD change Mass Effect 3's ending. Again, that's if objectivity is what you're going for.
@everyday182 The important details about Saren and Anderson's relationship were explained in ME1 if you do enough snooping around in between missions. Also, that's a relationship between to side characters, not a direct relationship between the main character and a side character so it's still a bit different.
@Yulaw2000 Agreed.I'll be renting ME3 1st just to be on the afe side. I bought ME1 and loved it for the story mostly. They introduced tons of big questions that had me on the edge of my seat and then did a good job of answered them at the right times while still leaving a lot to be explored in the future. ME2's story, on the other hand read like something out of "the psp sidestory/spinoff handbook," where no real game changing story moments really occurred for almost the entire game. So, even though the events may be serious and important, if you completely ignored the game, most of the main over-arching plot could carry on unaffected. I haven't played ME3 yet, but it sounds like the focus on the main story is continuing to develop into a bit of a clusterf**k from where it started out so brilliantly. Hopefully the story is more focused in 3, but from what I'm hearig I'm not too confident about it.
Poncho_Hachacha's comments