684 réponses à ce sujet

[AntiChri5]

There is a massive difference between "this is the grand finale that goes far beyond the other two games" and "who cares about that stuff? Those two don't matter".

[AntiChri5]

DarkRiku7 wrote...

Wow, you guys have really gone to town on a few statements in a very short meaningless article.

We get bored sometimes.

[Il Divo]

Veex wrote...


I see folks are still struggling with the analogy. I suppose if you don't follow sports or haven't been involved in a competitive atmosphere it can be difficult to grasp. To state the situation plainly, which is the more important event; stopping Saren and Sovereign, stopping the Collectors, or fighting the entire Reaper fleet in a galactic war?
This is what the superbowl analogy is meant to portray. Your previous accomplishments aren't insignificant because they've led to and prepared you for this moment, however, on that final stage the stakes are highest and what led you to this moment pales in comparison to what you're about to face. You can draw the parallel to music. You've played your local gigs and now are moving to a sold out nationally televised event. Your local gigs got you there but they're simply not of the same scale.

I can completely understand that people enjoy the previous Mass Effects and what those playthroughs and stories to matter but its merely a comparison of urgency and scale.

I certainly understand the analogy, I just think it's a bad one, primarily because competitive sports and good narrative structure generally aren't synonymous, since a good trilogy is built on its previous installments. A great example is how plot twists are generally reliant on a decent understanding of what has happened in the story so far.

Priestly's defense of the comparison doesn't put my annoyance to rest; it amplifies it. This is because if we accept his superbowl analogy as true, no one is thinking of the events which led up to this moment. And given the number of questionable plot elements in ME2, much as I may love it, that doesn't give much hope that issues like the Human Reaper or Shepard's resurrection are going to be given proper exposition this time around.

The off-hand manner in which he tells us "Who cares about the regular season?" is a great indicator of how important they see the events of ME1 and ME2 at this point.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 novembre 2011 - 02:28 .

[Whatever42]

Veex wrote...

I see folks are still struggling with the analogy. I suppose if you don't follow sports or haven't been involved in a competitive atmosphere it can be difficult to grasp. To state the situation plainly, which is the more important event; stopping Saren and Sovereign, stopping the Collectors, or fighting the entire Reaper fleet in a galactic war?

This is what the superbowl analogy is meant to portray. Your previous accomplishments aren't insignificant because they've led to and prepared you for this moment, however, on that final stage the stakes are highest and what led you to this moment pales in comparison to what you're about to face. You can draw the parallel to music. You've played your local gigs and now are moving to a sold out nationally televised event. Your local gigs got you there but they're simply not of the same scale.

I can completely understand that people enjoy the previous Mass Effects and what those playthroughs and stories to matter but its merely a comparison of urgency and scale.

Here is the problem with that analogy. First, we're supposedly playing in this superbowl, not simply watching it. Knowing the team and the opposition in that circumstance would have great value. Simply parachuting in a new quarterback just for the game would be a disaster.

Of course, the analogy has us as spectators, not participants. Still, awful analogy right there.

Second, even as a spectator, if I've been cheering on my team all year and they're in the superbowl then that game will have much more meaning to me. So for someone who's never watched the NFL to simply start with the superbowl may be interesting for them, but its not the perfect time to jump in. So in that case, Bioware is blowing smoke.

Unless they are developing two different games, it cannot both be the perfect time to jump in and be a deep and meaningful conclusion to the previous two games. One of those statements HAS to be false. 

[TobyHasEyes]

Veex wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah, make up your minds, BioWare.

Is ME3 a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy that really builds on and wraps up what we did in the first two games because they truly mattered, or is ME3 the only thing that matters because "who cares about the previous two?!" because they were just an insignificant warm-up?

You can't have it both ways. It's bad enough every time Casey, Ray, Greg or anybody else says things like, "this is the best place to jump into Mass Effect" but this article just adds insult to injury. Especially when ME2 wasn't quite as satisfying in the import choices/consequences/variations as it could have been or was even claimed to be.

I see folks are still struggling with the analogy. I suppose if you don't follow sports or haven't been involved in a competitive atmosphere it can be difficult to grasp. To state the situation plainly, which is the more important event; stopping Saren and Sovereign, stopping the Collectors, or fighting the entire Reaper fleet in a galactic war?

This is what the superbowl analogy is meant to portray. Your previous accomplishments aren't insignificant because they've led to and prepared you for this moment, however, on that final stage the stakes are highest and what led you to this moment pales in comparison to what you're about to face. You can draw the parallel to music. You've played your local gigs and now are moving to a sold out nationally televised event. Your local gigs got you there but they're simply not of the same scale.

I can completely understand that people enjoy the previous Mass Effects and what those playthroughs and stories to matter but its merely a comparison of urgency and scale.

 The point that people object to is that suggesting that who cares what happens prior to the 'main event' suggests that what happened in them wasn't important.. 

 Obviously in one sense that is true; as you say the events of ME3 will be more important than stoppin Saren or th Collectors were (with Sovereign, that is more complex as not stopping Sovereign would have actually been worse than the events of ME3)

 But the sense that.. now you are here nothing that happened before matters.. flies in the face of people's expectations that ME3 will show the consequences to our previous actions that we have been assured are coming
 
 Just to repeat.. I don't think this marketing should make people think that is the case, simply because it is throwaway marketing talk. But there can't be much argument made to suggest that what was said meant something else.. people were absolutely right to draw the conclusions they did about what was being said, but what we have to recognise is that what was said will in  reality not be of any consequence to the actual game

[Il Divo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Unless they are developing two different games, it cannot both be the perfect time to jump in and be a deep and meaningful conclusion to the previous two games. One of those statements HAS to be false. 

Pretty much this.

[TobyHasEyes]

Il Divo wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Unless they are developing two different games, it cannot both be the perfect time to jump in and be a deep and meaningful conclusion to the previous two games. One of those statements HAS to be false. 

Pretty much this.

 I don't agree with that.. it can conclude the events of the previous games in a deep and meaningful way, sowing the consequences of actions and establishing continuity, whilst at the same time providing a game that is great for those to whom those elements hold no significance

 What can't easily be resolved is the claim that our actions from ME1 + ME2 have consequences in ME3.. and the claim that prior events aren't important (and who cares about them even!) to ME3

 Hence the right conclusion being that this statement in IGN (which suggests the previous two no longer matter) is false marketing fluff

[aj2070]

Thanks IGN, that was... useless. Well other than realizing that Bioware's marketing straegy appears to be to dismss the back story of the Mass Effect universe. I'm surprised no one has said this earlier but Hudson and company's marketing scheme is the equivilent of George Lucas marketing "Return of the Jedi" by saying "forget 'Star Wars: A New Hope' and 'The Empire Strikes Back', Return of the Jedi is the real story. Those other movies were nothing."

[Whatever42]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

I don't agree with that.. it can conclude the events of the previous games in a deep and meaningful way, sowing the consequences of actions and establishing continuity, whilst at the same time providing a game that is great for those to whom those elements hold no significance

Sure but this is not what they said. They didn't say you could still enjoy ME3. They said it was the perfect time to jump in. More importantly, they then strongly diminished the importance of the first two games.

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 What can't easily be resolved is the claim that our actions from ME1 + ME2 have consequences in ME3.. and the claim that prior events aren't important (and who cares about them even!) to ME3

 Hence the right conclusion being that this statement in IGN (which suggests the previous two no longer matter) is false marketing fluff

Oh, very likely. When I took a marketing class, my prof started the 3rd lecture with the question "is marketing evil?"

Let's face it, marketers are creepy people who deliberately exploit our insecurities and lie to us whenever possible. To steal a joke from another profession: how do you tell a marketer is lying? His lips are moving.

[JamieCOTC]

AntiChri5 wrote...

There is a massive difference between "this is the grand finale that goes far beyond the other two games" and "who cares about that stuff? Those two don't matter".

Just remind yourself that this translates to "Dear COD players.  We want your money." 

[Quixal]

Seriously folks? Some of you still pay attention to Bioware marketing?

The game may be good, it may be bad. Decisions from the previous games may play a large or small role. The one thing that can be counted on is that the marketing for the game will be as relevant to ME3 as the Old Spice marketing is to ME3. As some have suggested, draw your information from dev comments.

[aj2070]

What's even more head scratching is that up until the Mass Effect 3 marketing monster, Bioware had been marketing this franchise as a trilogy. Now, you have the producer and any other talking head pretty much saying the first two installments don't matter.

Before the appologists start in, there is a difference between "you don't need to have played the first two games to have a meaningful experience" and what the Mass Effect marketing squad has been repeating, something more to the theme of "forget those first two games, this is the important one". One would almost think there could be an opportunity for more sales of the first two games since we are still more than 4 months from release.  Heck, I'm playing through Mass Effect again just for kicks and giggles.

Modifié par aj2070, 02 novembre 2011 - 02:59 .

[MerinTB]

The article was stupid and BioWare should be embarrassed.

That's my take.

[Veex]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

The point that people object to is that suggesting that who cares what happens prior to the 'main event' suggests that what happened in them wasn't important.. 

In that moment, they aren't. Thats why the sports analogy is pertinent. It doesn't matter that the Patriots went 16-0 in the regular season in 2007 and the Giants were 10-6. They lost in the superbowl and all of those record setting performances throughout the season lose their significance and luster due to that loss. The game isn't designed in the same fashion, so unless you do it intentionally you aren't going to fail, but from a narrative standpoint if you fail nothing else matters.

Perhaps I'm biased due to my own competitive experiences but I completely understand the intention that sole focus should be on the task at hand. Reflection is something you partake in after the fact, not during.

[Nashiktal]

Il Divo wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

I would dare say the games are already accesible. I went into AC2 with little knowledge of what happened in AC1. I got wrapped up into ezio's story.

...Actually come to think of it ubisoft did a good job of making the game accesible without forcing you to play AC1.

I think that speaks more to how Ubisoft chooses to present the material than any game necessarily being stand-alone. A great example is the "recap", which both AC2 and Brotherhood provide the player at the start of the game. Both allow newcomers to catch up to the story so far, but I certainly wouldn't say that I consider any of the game's "stand-alone", from a narrative perspective. Brotherhood is heavily reliant on AC2, which is equally reliant on AC1 (Ex: Subject 16 references, bleeding effect, etc). It's all a matter of how the information is presented to newcomers.

That is a good point. You don't have to invalidate previous entries for newcomers. I am proof of that in regards to assassins creed. Despite my initial confusion I ended up wrapped within the story, and I had enough working knowledge of the previous entry to not feel lost. (well, outside of the usual lost feeling one gets in the assassin creed games .)

[Il Divo]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I thought we had established that "it's the perfect time to jump in" was pretty much marketing BS.

That's definitely a possibility and if that turns out to be the case, I really won't care how Bioware chose to market their product; I play their games for entertainment, not for advertisements. However, it must also be said that this method of marketing does introduce the scenario that ME3 is not reliant on either 1 or 2 in telling its story, for which I'd be very disappointed, as I still have many questions stemming from both games.

[Il Divo]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 I don't agree with that.. it can conclude the events of the previous games in a deep and meaningful way, sowing the consequences of actions and establishing continuity, whilst at the same time providing a game that is great for those to whom those elements hold no significance

It's possible, but I'd argue that scenario is extremely difficult to achieve, in comparison to either focusing on

1) Gamers who have prior awareness of the ME series
or
2) Gamers who have no knowledge of the ME series.

This introduces two contradictory scenarios. Gamers of scenario 1) want the game to be referential to prior installments, as that builds up the notion of continuity and "concluding" a trilogy. Mass Effect 3 must finish what Mass Effect 1 and 2 began. Gamers of scenario 2) however need to be able to understand the events taking place on screen in a very user friendly, which is more easily done by avoiding any elements which a player would need prior affiliation with, such as Mass Effect 1 and 2.

I used an Assassin's Creed example earlier as a demonstration of how it's possible to appeal to newcomers, but build off continuity, but that doesn't make it an easy solution, since you're operating off two fundamentally opposed standpoints. It also becomes even more difficult the more "entrenched" into a series you go, since those are more details which the newcomer is not aware of.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 novembre 2011 - 03:44 .

[Il Divo]

Nashiktal wrote...

That is a good point. You don't have to invalidate previous entries for newcomers. I am proof of that in regards to assassins creed. Despite my initial confusion I ended up wrapped within the story, and I had enough working knowledge of the previous entry to not feel lost. (well, outside of the usual lost feeling one gets in the assassin creed games .)

Yeah, tell me about it. It's a great series, but the conclusions in ACII and Brotherhood completely screwed with my mind. Hopefully Ubisoft delivers on that promise of "answers" with Revelations. Altair should be able to shed some light on this.

[WolfForce99]

No matter what. Those of us who have played ME1 and/or ME2 will have a better time when we import our Shepard in to ME3. Because we get all the little extra side story stuff from playing ME1 and/or ME2.

[MerinTB]

I have zero sympathy for people who want to jump into the middle of a series (regardless of it is comic books, movies, tv series, novel series, game series, whatever) and expect any point that they jump in at to be as if nothing came before.

You want into a series, you have a couple realistic choices. You can try and go back and start from the beginning (sometimes hard or impossible for certain things, sure)...
or you can jump in where you are at and accept that some references might not make sense until later, or never.

It's not like brand new stories in any medium don't have backstory. It's not like people can't enjoy said stories.

Seriously, this is such a stupid thing to try and cater to.

[TobyHasEyes]

Veex wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

The point that people object to is that suggesting that who cares what happens prior to the 'main event' suggests that what happened in them wasn't important.. 

In that moment, they aren't. Thats why the sports analogy is pertinent. It doesn't matter that the Patriots went 16-0 in the regular season in 2007 and the Giants were 10-6. They lost in the superbowl and all of those record setting performances throughout the season lose their significance and luster due to that loss. The game isn't designed in the same fashion, so unless you do it intentionally you aren't going to fail, but from a narrative standpoint if you fail nothing else matters.

Perhaps I'm biased due to my own competitive experiences but I completely understand the intention that sole focus should be on the task at hand. Reflection is something you partake in after the fact, not during.

 I would like to think that.. in the moments of ME3.. choices such as the Rachni Queen, saving or not saving the Council, brainwashing/destroying the Geth etc. would be of some importance

[AntiChri5]

I don't have any either, Merin, but i can understand BioWares need to market to those who do.

Advertising to people who played the last game is pretty pointless, they would make up their mind on whether or not they want the new game by judging the last one. By encouraging people to jump in whenever, Bio makes much more cash.

[Whatever42]

AntiChri5 wrote...

I don't have any either, Merin, but i can understand BioWares need to market to those who do.

Advertising to people who played the last game is pretty pointless, they would make up their mind on whether or not they want the new game by judging the last one. By encouraging people to jump in whenever, Bio makes much more cash.

But if they can't deliver on the promise of the trilogy then they risk the sales of their next game.

And if they can't deliver on their promises that this is the perfect time to jump in, they are also risking the sales of their next game.