170 réponses à ce sujet

[Pacifien]

Criticism is a strange beast. It would be wise to take it into consideration so that you can make your next creation stronger, but that doesn't mean you have to follow the desires of the criticizer. You're concurrently creating a game that you want that appeals to as many people as possible. With any creation, I'd say the first person for which you are designing is yourself. If you're designing a game to appeal to as many people as possible and you hated every minute of it, odds are that's reflected in your design and you fail on all counts.

So that's the first hurdle of criticism, balancing the creator's desires with the audience's.

At the moment, there is the thread "So does anyone else miss the elevators?" that is a prime example of how difficult it can be to understand criticism. Yes, some people really want those elevators back. No, some people really don't. But why did BioWare even get rid of them? Step back to November 16, 2007:


Elevators were maligned. People didn't want the elevators, but what they didn't realize was what the elevators managed to accomplish that is now missing because of their removal. Was the issue for them being in the elevator? Should it have been painfully obvious to BioWare that the complaints weren't about the elevators such much as the slow load times? By asking for their return, are we damning us back to slow elevators just so we can get squad banter? What are we getting out of this one criticism of the game? Just one, and now magnify it twenty times. It's a psychological quagmire for people to trudge through and somehow translate into the next game in an improved fashion.

So that's the second hurdle, understanding what's even being criticized.

But those first two points don't really address Nightwriter's main curiosity, which is how seriously is criticism of a game taken as a whole by both fans and developers.

Now, the developers are already developing the game, they want their game to kick ass, they'll look for ideas of how to mold the development in a fashion that excites them and works well with others. Threads that catch their attention in this regard are probably the threads that are focused, such as one that simply talked about the design of the Normandy. That caught a developer's interest, he actually responded to the thread. There's a thread going on right now that is only about the aim assist of combat. Likely has caught a developer's attention.

A thread that went into an analysis of character development, mission layout, plot continuations from ME1, the missing inventory, the horrible Hammerhead design and... okay, each thing you're mentioning has a different stage of development and different people working on it. You've lost it. You've lost your chance to have your criticism mean something because all it was in the end was a personal essay of disappointment. Great for forum discussions, not so much for developers.

But this probably brings us to the main point of Nightwriter's question, which is why people on the forum then say "if you didn't like it, don't play it." I mean, this is a forum, you bring topics of all sorts up for discussion. If you state something that is of an approving nature, what's there to discuss?

If I started a thread to say I like the arc projector. I like what it does. I use it all the time. Okay, good for me. Now, someone is going to reply "yeah, me too." And... that ends the discussion. Now, if I started a thread to say I like the Cain. I like what it does. But its limitations in ammo supply leaving it only available for one shot makes it completely useless as a heavy weapon for 95% of the missions and I don't see how anyone can say otherwise. Odds are I now have the makings of a thread borne from my disappointment.

Starting with what you don't like is a very easy way to get discussion moving. I'm not saying that's the only way, but it's tried and true.

If the only time you ever participated in the forum was to voice disappointment, though, that's going to make people question why only discuss the disappointment. What are you seeking to accomplish by discussing something at length that you didn't like? Is it the act of a debate itself? Affirmation that you're not the only one to see things in a certain way? Honest attempt to try to change the system? Motivations do not translate over the internet very well. So people likely go with the most basic motivations: you played a game and you didn't like it. You didn't like it so much that you complained at length about it. It's a game. Don't keep playing it if you don't like it.

Modifié par Pacifien, 26 octobre 2010 - 08:47 .

[SimonTheFrog]

cachx wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

 
Had I reached the same level of "dissapointment" I would have done the decent thing, state my dissapointment and then just move on.

I'm one of the people that keeps writing the same stuff i don't like about the game over and over again. But i can tell you why i consider this to be still "decent": people are not like databases that file an info and than have it at disposal for eternity. If you think something is important for you and other players, than reminding others (and hopefully some BioWare employees too) about it may be more influencial. It's basically propaganda, fighting for something that you think is worth fighting for. 
I wouldn't do that for the wish of a pink pony on one of the planets, you know random personal favours. But for stuff that i feel is significant, like how are the heroes depicted in this heroic epos. Are they depicted as soldiers or like cartoon figures? I believe its important and i have the feeling others think so too.
Therefor i try to create awareness that this is the opinion of a part of the community. If the fate of ME3 is at stake, screw the odds! 

[Nightwriter]

But Pacifien, it seems like it should be simple. The wait - bad. The banter - good. Mostly I think people who complain about the removal of the elevators just desperately crave a return of squad banter.

If BioWare had come to us back then and said, "Okay, here's the deal: we can take out the elevators but you'll get no squad banter and seriously reduced squad interaction. Do you still want us to take them out?" ... things might have been a lot different. What would we have said then? I'd probably have gone, "Wait, wait, wait!"

And I guess I feel like many people just use "If you didn't like it, don't play it" as a way of dismissing different opinions entirely. Just because a criticism may be, yes, negative, is it wrong? 

[Collider]

"If you don't like it, don't play it" is basically saying "stop complaining." To some degree the statement can be applicable for people who take the game waaay too seriously and act like Bioware is the devil and hate it's customers. But otherwise I'd say that a lot of the time it ignores the point of the criticism in the first place, which is sometimes that the critic would like to see changes in future games.

[SimonTheFrog]

Its never that simple: the banter didn't vanish because of the elevators but because we have 12 companions in ME2 and it's impossible for BioWare to provide bantering among each and every possible couple you bring somewhere. It was a lot of permutations in ME1 already, remember.

Therefore they provided the hotspots for monologues instead. So, the bantering just was adapted to the new situation.

The real question here is: why so many new crewmembers? There are many many losses and only a few gains it seems.

And about the loading times: i hardly doubt that there is a way to make that go away or hiding it completely. So, the question would be: what do you want on your screen while waiting for the level to load. I liked the elevators because it created the feeling of a consistent world, right from the cockpit to each bar or shop on the hub. No loading screen can top that.

Modifié par SimonTheFrog, 26 octobre 2010 - 09:11 .

[Icinix]

It's a very tricky one. On more than one occasion I myself have been accused of being a 'game basher' or just a troll because of an implied negative comment.
For the record I'm very pro BioWare, love them to bits. That doesn't mean I'm above giving them a ribbing if the mood takes, and I also understand due to the nature of the internet it's very hard to understand what may be said with slight tongue in cheek, or what is serious (I am rarely, if ever the latter) AND that if you make some comments, regardless of intent, in a fan based area you will likely be called a trasher or on the reverse a rabid fan. It's the internet. I doubt there is any escaping it.

From what I've seen, the staff at BioWare have been pretty good at picking between complaints and genuine concerns, their games are great and are not your typical pick up, play once and throw away games. As such they have a fiercely passionate fan base. I'll be honest, it was only AFTER I found out that changes were made to ME2 (Elevators, Mako etc) because of people's issues / concerns that I decided to spend countless hours in these forums with a 'I want my voice heard' attitude.

As for why people say, don't like it, don't play it. I think it's because a lot of the arguments come across as JUST negative, or are actually JUST negative. Despite our best beliefs, the average internet poster is not a member of the oxford debating team, and as such it's very easy (Indeed, probably easier) to post / perceive a comment as a straight out negative.

It would be like something someone joining a coke forum because coke is to fizzy and saying it should be left open longer before sealing. The intent is there, but the execution misses the mark. So the only logical response is, DON'T DRINK IT!

If this doesn't make sense, my apologies, I'm technically still asleep.

Modifié par Icinix, 26 octobre 2010 - 09:13 .

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
But Pacifien, it seems like it should be simple. The wait - bad. The banter - good. Mostly I think people who complain about the removal of the elevators just desperately crave a return of squad banter.

Seems like it would have been simple, but hindsight is 20/20. Makes you wonder about criticisms being made about ME2 that seem like they should be easy to understand, but will be completely misinterpreted in ME3.

Nightwriter...
And I guess I feel like many people just use "If you didn't like it, don't play it" as a way of dismissing different opinions entirely. Just because a criticism may be, yes, negative, is it wrong? 

Of course it's dismissive. You might have just made a post addressing twenty different points and someone just went "pfft, whatever." I mean, was every single point of yours wrong? Did they agree with any of it? Give you a sign here?

It's like I could spend considerable time talking about how I don't like Garrus and someone shoots back "well, just kill him during the suicide mission then." And I'm left with "but, uh, wha, ju, but--" I don't want to kill him, I want him to be better! I want people to discuss this with me!

Maybe, though, if you're serious about the discussion, you need to rethink the approach. I've had plenty of discussions about the same topics over and over that have decidedly different flavors all because of how people approach it.

[Pacifien]

Icinix wrote...
From what I've seen, the staff at BioWare have been pretty good at picking between complaints and genuine concerns, their games are great and are not your typical pick up, play once and throw away games.*snip*

I think if people were curious how BioWare reacts to criticism, they should just hang out in the Dragon Age II forums. Of course, those employees are different from the ones working on Mass Effect 2, I know, but it's good insight and interesting nonetheless. Forums for the most part have never been easy places for developers to hang out, and I'm not just talking about for BioWare. I remember the uproar simply because Straczynski would only participate in the moderated Babylon 5 newsgroup rather than taking it like a man on the wilds of the unmoderated group. But holy crap, would you? Would you hang around here if you wrote the Jacob romance? (Show yourself, Jacob romance writer! Be a man and show yourself!)

[Nightwriter]

So what should ME2 critics do if they want to be taken more seriously. Right off the bat, what should they do.

[Moonbox]

Hi Pacifien.

I'm one of the people who does nothing but complain about this game. Why do I do this? I do it because ME1 was probably my favorite RPG of the last 10 years and I'd like that experience to continue with the third title. I'll buy the third title, but ONLY on the merits of the first title and ONLY because I'm so heavily invested in the ME universe. It's so disappointing to see a studio like BioWare, which is known for its great stories, flop so badly in this department on ME2. I was angry, I felt a little bit ripped-off and I'd like them to take special attention to that on ME3. Perhaps if the writers for ME1 were given some authority over what happens to their creation, or if there were (not to sound rude but) better writers than the ME2 ones working on ME3, BioWare would easily renew my faith in the company. 

It's hard for me to believe that the original creators of the studio that came out with KoToR, ME and BG took a good look at the ME2 and said:

"Yeah.  Previously unmentioned/non existant bug creatures harvesting human DNA to make a GIANT DEATH ROBOT sounds like A GREAT continuation of the ME story.  That's a perfect follow up to the Citadel battle and defeating Saren....."

I mean that.  It really doesn't seem like the people who made BioWare successfull had any input on the ME2 story, because the quality of the story was a complete departure from what I, and hundreds of thousands of others, have come to expect from the studio. 

Modifié par Moonbox, 26 octobre 2010 - 09:38 .

[cachx]

Babli wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Is BioWare going to let sales results justify its decisions?

Yes.

The other alternative is Bioware not existing at all. Would you willingly take a decision that hurts you?

Nightwriter wrote...
I'll admit I've said the same stuff over and over. But that is only because argument and debate are recurring and unending - so long as there is someone with an opposing opinion the debate will continue and you will keep arguing your side, which does, yes, involve you repeating yourself.
So to some extent I think repetitions of the same points are to be forgiven.

Where do we draw the line between debate being useful, and just being pointless circular arguments, though? Most of the stuff ends up being subjective anyway. I'm going to get screwed in ME3 because I didn't complain as often or as loudly?

Why was story sacrificed for better gameplay?

Resource allotment for game production does not work that way! *ahhhhh* Is quite possible to have both aspects to be good or both to suck. You can blame it on a number of things (lack of comunication between the writers, or between the departments, technical limitations, or just plain old lack of talent, etc). They didn't say "Ok this time, good gameplay and bad story, GO!"

But Pacifien, it seems like it should be simple. The wait - bad. The
banter - good. Mostly I think people who complain about the removal of
the elevators just desperately crave a return of squad banter.

This is true. Also people forget that there were much more elevators that featured no banter at all. Additionally... er... not going to go off-topic here

[Nightwriter]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Its never that simple: the banter didn't vanish because of the elevators but because we have 12 companions in ME2 and it's impossible for BioWare to provide bantering among each and every possible couple you bring somewhere.

DA:O had what - 9? 10? - squadmembers. And an astoundingly diverse supply of unique party banter.

Before you say anything I know it's different and DA:O enjoyed more time and care than ME2 was perhaps given, but I'm just putting it out there to demonstrate we're not demanding the moon, we have seen it done before. It makes us wonder why it can't be done again (because it was great).

SimonTheFrog wrote...

The real question here is: why so many new crewmembers? There are many many losses and only a few gains it seems.

That is curious. It's an interesting decision on their part. I'm of the fewer squadmembers, more squad dialogue mindset myself.

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
So what should ME2 critics do if they want to be taken more seriously. Right off the bat, what should they do.

Taken more seriously by BioWare?

Modifié par Pacifien, 26 octobre 2010 - 09:37 .

[SimonTheFrog]

I know forums that are a lot less full of hate and bashing and interestingly enough its forums where the devs make appearances more often.

But i might be drawing false conclusions here. Maybe its just the game itself that attracts certain kind of gamers and whether or not devs participate doesn't matter that much.



Anyhow... actually while thinking about it, i really wished we knew more about the background of many decisions. Why this why that in the game. Because most of the changes from ME to ME2 were surely hotly debated inside BioWare as well and then a decision has been made after good consideration. It would probably take a lot of heat out of many discussions if we knew that they made "with good intentions" and a plan on the long run.

But i guess it would make BioWare also more vulnurable. Some decisions are most probably unpopular because they were made because of budget restraints. And nobody would come out of that one looking pretty, i guess.

[Nightwriter]

By the world, Pacifien. By BioWare, moderators, other forumites.

[Collider]

Nightwriter wrote...

So what should ME2 critics do if they want to be taken more seriously. Right off the bat, what should they do.

1. Don't make it seem like it's the end of the world. That the critic is taking things waaay too seriously. Don't exaggerate too much. If you take a more medium or middle-of-road approach people are probably more likely to listen to you.
2. Don't dismiss Bioware or Bioware fans or insult them. Saying that Bioware is going to become a Call of Duty clone company and that everyone who likes ME2 are stupid Halo fans makes you look like a tool as well as possibly trolling. If you want people to take you seriously or consider your opinion, insulting or belittling them is not the way to do it.
3. Say what you do like about the game. If you say you like absolutely nothing about the game whatsoever people are less likely to take you seriously. They may dismiss you as someone incredibly stingy and not worth listening to as a result. Or someone so attached to another game that anything that deviates from it is bad to them. Even if you didn't like ME2's story, there are other things you could like. That there's less pop in textures, for example. If you're less of an die heard extremist people are going to take you more seriously. Also helps if you point at the company and the company's games and what they may have liked about them.
4. Constructive criticism. This is a big one. If you suggest ways to improve the game you'll seem less like someone just screaming and yelling and wasting everyone's time.

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
By the world, Pacifien. By BioWare, moderators, other forumites.

Oh, I wouldn't know.

[Nightwriter]

cachx wrote...

Where do we draw the line between debate being useful, and just being pointless circular arguments, though? Most of the stuff ends up being subjective anyway. I'm going to get screwed in ME3 because I didn't complain as often or as loudly?

Well I mean come on, can any of us really say the Collector base thread is terribly useful anymore?

Yet it's there, and some people enjoy posting in it, and I take a peek in there every now and then. And fwiw, I'm always willing to have another Cerberus debate, even though I realize we're just going in circles.

So to some extent I think these debates are here for us and not necessarily for the game's benefit.

cachx wrote...

Resource allotment for game production does not work that way! *ahhhhh* Is quite possible to have both aspects to be good or both to suck. You can blame it on a number of things (lack of comunication between the writers, or between the departments, technical limitations, or just plain old lack of talent, etc). They didn't say "Ok this time, good gameplay and bad story, GO!"

Heh... don't... don't be silly... I... I didn't think anything like that... that would be stupid...

Well, it seems like you hear a lot that BioWare "really set out to make a better game". They say that a lot. And they believe they have made a better game in "virtually every way", they say that too.

But do they mean story? When they set out to make this better game, were they thinking of story at all? Because it seems like they were just thinking of gameplay.

[Collider]

One has to factor in time and resource restraints. The writers may have the best ideas ever, but it's not going to matter if those best ideas ever don't make it in the game for one logistical reason or another.

[Nightwriter]

Collider wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

So what should ME2 critics do if they want to be taken more seriously. Right off the bat, what should they do.

1. Don't make it seem like it's the end of the world. That the critic is taking things waaay too seriously. Don't exaggerate too much. If you take a more medium or middle-of-road approach people are probably more likely to listen to you.
2. Don't dismiss Bioware or Bioware fans or insult them. Saying that Bioware is going to become a Call of Duty clone company and that everyone who likes ME2 are stupid Halo fans makes you look like a tool as well as possibly trolling. If you want people to take you seriously or consider your opinion, insulting or belittling them is not the way to do it.
3. Say what you do like about the game. If you say you like absolutely nothing about the game whatsoever people are less likely to take you seriously. They may dismiss you as someone incredibly stingy and not worth listening to as a result. Or someone so attached to another game that anything that deviates from it is bad to them. Even if you didn't like ME2's story, there are other things you could like. That there's less pop in textures, for example. If you're less of an die heard extremist people are going to take you more seriously. Also helps if you point at the company and the company's games and what they may have liked about them.
4. Constructive criticism. This is a big one. If you suggest ways to improve the game you'll seem less like someone just screaming and yelling and wasting everyone's time.

I don't think I've ever seen so much truth packed into one post.

Now if only we could actually get some people to listen to this...

[cachx]

Collider wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

So what should ME2 critics do if they want to be taken more seriously. Right off the bat, what should they do.

1. Don't make it seem like it's the end of the world. That the critic is taking things waaay too seriously. Don't exaggerate too much. If you take a more medium or middle-of-road approach people are probably more likely to listen to you.
2. Don't dismiss Bioware or Bioware fans or insult them. Saying that Bioware is going to become a Call of Duty clone company and that everyone who likes ME2 are stupid Halo fans makes you look like a tool as well as possibly trolling. If you want people to take you seriously or consider your opinion, insulting or belittling them is not the way to do it.
3. Say what you do like about the game. If you say you like absolutely nothing about the game whatsoever people are less likely to take you seriously. They may dismiss you as someone incredibly stingy and not worth listening to as a result. Or someone so attached to another game that anything that deviates from it is bad to them. Even if you didn't like ME2's story, there are other things you could like. That there's less pop in textures, for example. If you're less of an die heard extremist people are going to take you more seriously. Also helps if you point at the company and the company's games and what they may have liked about them.
4. Constructive criticism. This is a big one. If you suggest ways to improve the game you'll seem less like someone just screaming and yelling and wasting everyone's time.

Pretty good list, specially 1 and 2. I tend to ignore angry or dismissive people, "RPG fans" that hold themselves morally and intellectually above every other player out there are specially aggravating.

Well, it seems like you hear a lot that BioWare "really set out to make a
better game". They say that a lot. And they believe they have made a better game in "virtually every way", they say that too.

Well, as I said before, I don't think they set out to make a worse game.

Here is a shocker: I actually enjoyed the story, a lot. I acknowledge the holes and inconsistencies, but it never got to the point where I completely lost my ****. It never got to the point were the franchise was dead. It never got to the point that I would never enjoy a game again.

Considering the whole package, ME2 is my pick for Game of the Year (even though RDR will probably get all the awards anyway), and I'm sure I'm not alone on that sentiment. (cue a bitter and angry person saying that all 'pro' critics in existence were bought by EA).

This thread is actually really good, by the way <3

[Nightwriter]

Well I'm sort of hoping that's why Pacifien hasn't locked it yet.

Okay so tell me: what did you enjoy about ME2's story? And "story" refers to the Collectors here, rather than the characters.

[lovgreno]

Actualy I enjoyed it all. Sure, Collectors and Cerberus was not as good in the villain role as Saren and the Geth in ME1 but it was more than good enough.

[Nightwriter]

I think the game just got off to a bad start for me. Throughout the opening events I kept saying, "Wait, what? No." and "Hold on, what? Where am I going?"

I also sort of miss being a hero. ME1 did feel a bit more... epic, I guess. The threat felt broader, I'm a Spectre, colonies are getting hit in the open, there's this big dramatic attack on the Citadel. In ME2 the galaxy doesn't really care what you're doing, the Alliance doesn't really care what you're doing.