In my humble opinion, the "you can't please everyone" attitude is plain wrong. Modding already goes a very long way toward pleasing everyone. Of course, it also leaves less room for exploitation, which is just an added bonus for the customers.

TL;DR The developers of BF3, ME3, and D3 all had their heads up their asses and ended up completely blowing off fans of past games in the genre for more upfront $

Except, in the real world where you don't have control over the majority of everything, you don't always get what you want.

quote millzbryan

I am so very tired of people defending the game developers. You should get what you want, and companies that respond to that attitude will be know for that. This is a market that they should be diving into. People want more than the run of the mill game out of the box. I've grown as a gamer and i find myself saddened by the lack of luster that developers are producing nowadays.

There are alot more constraints in game development than just customer perception and demand.

Deep down, most if not all devs want to produce the highest quality and most innovative games possible, problem is to do that they have huge capital requirements and no way to raise funds until they deliver a product (with the exception of kickstarter, which is why there has been so much innovation in that market). So then they call onto publishers for funding which brings in constraints on innovation since pubs want to minimise risks and maximise return like any big corporation, leading to devs being forced to regurgitate what has been successful previously (COD as an example).

quote tricolor

TL;DR The developers of BF3, ME3, and D3 all had their heads up their asses and ended up completely blowing off fans of past games in the genre for more upfront $

How do you figure Mass Effect 3 falls into that. They gave out free dlc to try and fix the way that fans felt about the ending. That seems to be an anti money move to me.

See sorry, to me you just seem like a person who would have hated them either way.

that so called "Most important character(like you said arguably, which honestly not really, he adds little to no story other than his initial backstory cutscene.) isn't really a necessary add on to the game as playing without him doeesn't hurt the gamea all that much. And really Whopping? it's ten bucks. Multiplayer is a decent, yet boring addition, but no one forces anyone to buy those packs for cash, all the packs I bought I earned from earned credits.

I'm not saying Mass Effect 3 was a bad game, it was not. And there are things the the extended endings did right. I'm just saying that they didn't release them for free from the goodness of their hearts, and that they even kicked the fans who wanted to win with conventional means after giving them an ending that in itself was satisfactory to them. Not exactly the actions of a benevolent game developer.

For Mass Effect being a good game. Well, it's a good sci-fi shooter (or action adventure if you prefer that). All other elements are shallow or poorly done. It's not even an RPG anymore, and that's quite a jarring genreshift for the last game in a trilogy, especially one with savefile transfer and thus world consistency. There was no good reason to do this.

Would I have hated the endings either way? Well yes, if you wrote them like this I would. And there's nothing wrong with that. I like my endings to make sense in universe. You can't have Shepard beating the odds in every game up until the last moments and then say "oh, sorry. Can't be done here." It just doesn't fit with the rest of it. And the whole "victory through sacrifice"-thing was nonsense too. The only sacrifice we made was on Virmire in Mass Effect 1. In 3, people just died once in a while and I didn't even feel bad about it. I really wanted to love this game, I loved the other two, but it just doesn't begin to live up to the other two.