450 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Kel_Sjet wrote...

Darkelefantos1 wrote...
1. I assume because history has shown that his statements are to be taken with big grains of salt.

2. That's bull actually. Part of successful marketing is also to lie to make the game look better, or to hide the truth so they can make it a special reveal. Saying that the marketing guy cannot lie about the game he's working for is like saying that politicians keep all the promises they make to get elected, it's naive.

I am absolutely shocked at how ignorant people can be, and how incapable they can be of understanding basic things.

If you think it is the job of marketing to lie, then there is just no hope for you.

Marketing people can upmarket specific things about a game and downplay others, but they cannot outright lie about a game. Anyone who has ever held a professional job knows this.


There is a MASSIVE difference between someone downplaying a feature, and outright lying about it:

e.g.

Interviewer: What can you tell us about feature X?
Marketing guy: Yea, feature X is cool, but let me tell you about feature Y!
^THAT is downplaying.

Marketing guy: Feature X does not exist anymore.
^THAT is a 'statement', which by the very definition that they cannot outright lie about something, means that what he has said is true.


God, how can people be so oblivious. Has none of you ever had a professional job?

Marketing people lie all the time remember when smoking was considered were cool and there were no harmful side effects it was big tobacco's marketing departments that pushed that lie, even when the data clearly showed smoking caused lung cancer? That was a lie pushed by various big tobacco companies' marketing department.
 
Now I will admit that is rather extreme example but that is what marketing people do they hype things to the extreme, in order to sell a product or service. But to say that marketing people can't lie is beyond naive it's just downright stupid, because some marketing people in some other industries make a lot of money to simply lie all the time.  

If EA thinks it would sell more copies of Mass Effect 3 they would order Silverman to say: "Buy Mass Effect 3 or the world will end!" chances are he would do it because it is his job to make people buy Mass Effect 3 and if he didn't do it someone else would.  

[FRANCESCO84Inn]

for me its impossible for the ME story finish in the 3 chepter,

its possible the history continued in ME4 , in ME3 come a epic

Galattic war, and i not think the Reeper was defead in ME3,

for me the Reeper after a numerios losses, return in the dark space,

or return in another universe, and its possible after rebuild the Galattic community,

and its possible go in a new conflict for Batarian or another hostile species.

[Badpie]

ME2 was a "great place to start" for new people and as a result a lot of ME1 decisions and interactions with npcs and such were relegated to simple emails and "little treats" for the people who played ME1. They had no real bearing on anything. It was an insufficient morsel of a gesture to say "look! You played ME1! Here's proof in the form of an email that was typed up in 30 seconds!"

I don't want that for ME3. I don't want to feel like even my small decisions are being pushed aside or relegated to tiny mentions like that. That was the point of me playing in the first place. And when you're selling your final game as a great place to "start Mass Effect" that makes me wonder if those kinds of things in ME2 will be even more absent in ME3.

Modifié par Badpie, 09 août 2011 - 05:11 .

[In Exile]

Was anyone here for how ME2 would be the perfect place to start the series? Because, this is basically the same thing.

[didymos1120]

marshalleck wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Take comfort in the fact that they actually said the same thing about ME2.

How is that comforting? ME2 was a reboot of the series. Will ME3 be another reboot?

Oh, come on!  Batman Begins was a reboot. The new BSG was a reboot. Prince of Persia 2008 is a reboot. Castlevania Lords Of Shadow is a reboot. ME2? Prologue begins almost immediately after ME1.  Returning characters and locations from the first game. Events of ME1 acknowledged fairly frequently. Not. A. Reboot.

[In Exile]

Badpie wrote...

ME2 was a "great place to start" for new people and as a result a lot of ME1 decisions and interactions with npcs and such were relegated to simple emails and "little treats" for the people who played ME1. They had no real bearing on anything. It was an insufficient morsel of a gesture to say "look! You played ME1! Here's proof in the form of an email that was typed up in 30 seconds!"

What did you do in ME1 that should actually matter? Council choice and.... what? Wrex being alive? He had a pretty big cameo and changes Tuchanka a lot. Otherwise, we didn't make major choices in ME1 that should impact ME2. 

[Gorosaur]

Badpie wrote...

ME2 was a "great place to start" for new people and as a result a lot of ME1 decisions and interactions with npcs and such were relegated to simple emails and "little treats" for the people who played ME1. They had no real bearing on anything. It was an insufficient morsel of a gesture to say "look! You played ME1! Here's proof in the form of an email that was typed up in 30 seconds!"

I don't want that for ME3. I don't want to feel like even my small decisions are being pushed aside or relegated to tiny mentions like that. That was the point of me playing in the first place. And when you're selling your final game as a great place to "start Mass Effect" that makes me wonder if those kinds of things in ME2 will be even more absent in ME3.

So.....nobody new should play Mass Effect 3? At all? Makes sense to me. The check out counter should make you bring your copies of ME1 and ME2 with you when you buy the game.

[ViSeiRa]

That's the same guy responsible for DA2's "Button, Awesome" and "General, Spartan" marketing fiasco, I'm really concerned about where Bioware's heading since DA2 and it doesn't look good.

[Badpie]

Gorosaur wrote...

Badpie wrote...

ME2 was a "great place to start" for new people and as a result a lot of ME1 decisions and interactions with npcs and such were relegated to simple emails and "little treats" for the people who played ME1. They had no real bearing on anything. It was an insufficient morsel of a gesture to say "look! You played ME1! Here's proof in the form of an email that was typed up in 30 seconds!"

I don't want that for ME3. I don't want to feel like even my small decisions are being pushed aside or relegated to tiny mentions like that. That was the point of me playing in the first place. And when you're selling your final game as a great place to "start Mass Effect" that makes me wonder if those kinds of things in ME2 will be even more absent in ME3.

So.....nobody new should play Mass Effect 3? At all? Makes sense to me. The check out counter should make you bring your copies of ME1 and ME2 with you when you buy the game.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.  New players should have a great experience with ME3 as well, but not at the expense of content for existing players.

[Whatever42]

Badpie wrote...

ME2 was a "great place to start" for new people and as a result a lot of ME1 decisions and interactions with npcs and such were relegated to simple emails and "little treats" for the people who played ME1. They had no real bearing on anything. It was an insufficient morsel of a gesture to say "look! You played ME1! Here's proof in the form of an email that was typed up in 30 seconds!"

I don't want that for ME3. I don't want to feel like even my small decisions are being pushed aside or relegated to tiny mentions like that. That was the point of me playing in the first place. And when you're selling your game as a great place to "start Mass Effect" that makes me wonder if those kinds of things in ME2 will be even more non-present in ME3.

ME2 was a middle chapter. And ME1 had very few loose ends. 

Now some of the "email" thing is exactly what I expect in ME3. You helped or screwed over Gianna in game 1. In game 2, you get to see how that played out and interact with Gianna a little more. There was no continuation of the subplot in game 1 to game 2 but it was nice to see Gianna and to see her doing well. But these were minor characters and we got updates on how they were doing. There was no way we could be expected to personally interact with every person or that every minor character in ME1 would have a significant role in ME2. Some had another minor role, some did not, allowing us to interact with new minor characters.

Now unlike ME1, ME2 does have some loose threads that we do expect more from, absolutely. What is the fallout from that genophage decision, for example? But from what we've seen, that will likely play some significant role in ME3. Although its not mentioned, I see the possibility of that in the mission to save the krogan female. 

And the writers have talked about having to evolve all these decisions in ME3. They directly spoke about their challenges. Some marketer trying to assuage new players that they can jump into ME3 doesn't change anything. Especially when that marketer also says that there is lots there for returning players as well.

[littlezack]

Badpie wrote...

ME2 was a "great place to start" for new people and as a result a lot of ME1 decisions and interactions with npcs and such were relegated to simple emails and "little treats" for the people who played ME1. They had no real bearing on anything. It was an insufficient morsel of a gesture to say "look! You played ME1! Here's proof in the form of an email that was typed up in 30 seconds!"
.

It wasn't all like that - you met certain characters that reacted to you in different ways depending on the things you did and the choices you made. A few of them just came back as emails, but more than a few actually turned up. Characters like Wrex and Conrad that you had the choice of killing or saving, et cetera. Did they have huge, major impacts? No. But I look at ME2 more as a progress report. I didn't expect the plot with the Rachni Queen or my decision to save the council to come a climatic end there.

You can worry all day long about ever litte thing that's said and overanalyze until your head hurts - it won't get you anywhere. I don't see the sense in getting up in arms about something like this, especially when the game is still a ways away and we've seen relatively little of it.

[Gorosaur]

But never once did Bioware say that they were gimping the game for old players. Ive never heard any comments along those lines.

As for the emails? To be honest, I enjoyed those. Atleast they showed some impact for my actions. What about the dozens of side characters that make a reappearance? That was where alot of the real magic in Mass Effect 2 was for me.

[Seeker Sparrow]

In Exile wrote...

Badpie wrote...

ME2 was a "great place to start" for new people and as a result a lot of ME1 decisions and interactions with npcs and such were relegated to simple emails and "little treats" for the people who played ME1. They had no real bearing on anything. It was an insufficient morsel of a gesture to say "look! You played ME1! Here's proof in the form of an email that was typed up in 30 seconds!"

What did you do in ME1 that should actually matter? Council choice and.... what? Wrex being alive? He had a pretty big cameo and changes Tuchanka a lot. Otherwise, we didn't make major choices in ME1 that should impact ME2. 

The ME1 choices might not have made the difference someone might have wanted, however ME3 should be the game where every choice made previously matters.

As for the marketing, it is typical hype to attract gamers that may have seen ME1 and 2 and thought 'not for me' and to get them interested in the third game hoping it'll cause another influx of new fans that might well buy the other two games anyway, at least I think that's what they're trying to do.

They're expanding the fanbase, not ignoring it.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
That's still entitled.

The people who bought and played the first two games under the promised premise of "your choices matter" have a right to feel entitled.  It was something that was promised to them from the beginning.

And if you want to try to argue that the carry-over decisions in ME2 did "matter" and that their promise was kept, well, go right ahead; that's a subjective opinion, and people here have every right to disagree with that subjective opinion and voice their concerns that these promises aren't being kept.

Or you can waltz in and whine about how people are voicing concerns and act like they're idiots.  I guess that's a perfectly reasonable attitude as well.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 09 août 2011 - 05:20 .

[ViSeiRa]

Badpie wrote...

ME2 was a "great place to start" for new people and as a result a lot of ME1 decisions and interactions with npcs and such were relegated to simple emails and "little treats" for the people who played ME1. They had no real bearing on anything. It was an insufficient morsel of a gesture to say "look! You played ME1! Here's proof in the form of an email that was typed up in 30 seconds!"

I don't want that for ME3. I don't want to feel like even my small decisions are being pushed aside or relegated to tiny mentions like that. That was the point of me playing in the first place. And when you're selling your final game as a great place to "start Mass Effect" that makes me wonder if those kinds of things in ME2 will be even more absent in ME3.

As much as I agree with you I fear we're already screwed, even the decision to keep or destroy the base seems up in the air with last comic... we've never really had true choice in any ME installment so far, true choice is in games like (I'm gonna get flamed for this) TW2 where the entirety of the 2nd act and a vital part of the 3rd act are different based on your decisions.

[javierabegazo]

It's mindblowing to me that even to the more intelligent members of this community can be so obtuse as to not understand the idea of Not wanting to scare away new comers to the series.

[JamieCOTC]

Errol Dnamyx wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...
he's a car salesmen.  They are not supposed to be well liked.  As fans already, of course we dislike him but he isn't selling a product to us, he is selling the product to "others"

Wrong.
He has to sell the product to "us" as well, since no one automatically pre ordered ME3 when he/she bought ME2. And he is not good at it, imo.

Yes, he needs to sell to us, but not as hard as he needs to sell to potential new gamers.  While not everyone who bought ME1 and ME2 will buy ME3, it’s a safe bet that most will.  We are a “built in audience.”  Why do you think Hollywood is so preoccupied w/ making movies out of known properties like Captain America and Spiderman?  Built in audience.  The same is for games and game sequels.  They know X amount of people are going to buy the game, so the hard sell can be concentrated on the new audience and that’s where Mr. Silverman comes in.  

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 09 août 2011 - 05:22 .

[javierabegazo]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
That's still entitled.

The people who bought and played the first two games under the promised premise of "your choices matter" have a right to feel entitled.  It was something that was promised to them from the beginning.

And if you want to try to argue that the carry-over decisions in ME2 did "matter" and that their promise was kept, well, go right ahead; that's a subjective opinion, and people here have every right to disagree with that subjective opinion and voice their concerns that these promises aren't being kept.

Or you can waltz in and whine about how people are voicing concerns and act like they're idiots.  I guess that's a perfectly reasonable attitude as well.

The problem is, that none of us have seen the ME1 decisions flower up into consequence in ME3. It's been hinted multiple times, of multiple decisions in ME1 that werent' seen  in ME2, but will be in ME3.

[Someone With Mass]

javierabegazo wrote...

It's mindblowing to me that even to the more intelligent members of this community can be so obtuse as to not understand the idea of Not wanting to scare away new comers to the series.

Or the idea of branching out, for that matter.

[littlezack]

I think, at the end of the day, it's a balancing act. You don't want to alienate old fans, but you want to bring in new blood. You want to attract the person who might be thinking of buying this game but is scared off by the premise of having to play two games prior to understand what's going on. It's asking a bit time investment.

Personally, I take the inclusion of James Vega as a good sign. The fact that they felt the need to create a character whose main purpose is to keep newcomers from being lost is good indicator that there'll be a lot of backstory coming into play. If ME3 is really so contained that a newcomer could pick it up and not have to worry about any decisions or history coming into play, he wouldn't need to be in the game.

Modifié par littlezack, 09 août 2011 - 05:28 .

[MassFrost]

I learned back during DA2's marketing campaign that it's just easier to tune out David Silverman than bother taking anything he has to say seriously. How the guy ever got a job in marketing is beyond me, and it doesn't help that he often doesn't seem to know much about the games he's trying to promote.

[Badpie]

javierabegazo wrote...

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
That's still entitled.

The people who bought and played the first two games under the promised premise of "your choices matter" have a right to feel entitled.  It was something that was promised to them from the beginning.

And if you want to try to argue that the carry-over decisions in ME2 did "matter" and that their promise was kept, well, go right ahead; that's a subjective opinion, and people here have every right to disagree with that subjective opinion and voice their concerns that these promises aren't being kept.

Or you can waltz in and whine about how people are voicing concerns and act like they're idiots.  I guess that's a perfectly reasonable attitude as well.

The problem is, that none of us have seen the ME1 decisions flower up into consequence in ME3. It's been hinted multiple times, of multiple decisions in ME1 that werent' seen  in ME2, but will be in ME3.

And this is what I'm hoping for.  The argument about the initial article has sort of evolved into the choices mattering discussion.  There's nothing really to indicate that in ME3 our choices won't matter.  It's just a concern I have - and one that I think it important to a lot of returning fans.  I don't think it's wrong to keep that at the forefront of discussion while the game is being made.

As for "scaring away" new fans, Javier - I get it.  I wouldn't want to be overwhelmed with "NO OH MY GOD YOU HAVE TO PLAY THESE FIRST GAMES TO EVEN COMPREHEND ME3" and that's not what I'm saying at all.  The marketing for Bioware lately, though - for me - has been a bit discouraging.