.
And then,all the happy fans buyed BS and the others DLC and everyone lived happy for ever.
.
Sorry for the bad english
Modifié par RafaelBRms, 11 mars 2012 - 05:09 .
Should game companies be forced to do everything the fan base wants?
Débuté par
Hebrew42hammer
, mars 11 2012 04:59
#26
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:08
RafaelBRms
-
- Members
- 95 messages
Well, Bethesda heard the complaints against F3, and everyone knows what happened. Broken Steel.
.
And then,all the happy fans buyed BS and the others DLC and everyone lived happy for ever.
.
Sorry for the bad english
.
And then,all the happy fans buyed BS and the others DLC and everyone lived happy for ever.
.
Sorry for the bad english
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:09
revo76
-
- Members
- 981 messages
When actual script leaked people wanted new one, because they were upset about leak. Then BW decided to make newer ending.
According to who ? The fans.
Now we realized that previous enging was more logic so want it. If they can change the ending according to fan reactions, we're showing the same reaction now and they should change the final once again.
According to who ? The fans.
Now we realized that previous enging was more logic so want it. If they can change the ending according to fan reactions, we're showing the same reaction now and they should change the final once again.
#28
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:09
Whybother
-
- Members
- 1 133 messages
No.
But as an ex-game dev, I would have been remiss in not giving my loyal fanbase a satisfying and, yes, "happy" ending.
But as an ex-game dev, I would have been remiss in not giving my loyal fanbase a satisfying and, yes, "happy" ending.
#29
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:09
Cosmar
-
- Members
- 593 messages
OP, no, but they should be able to be held accountable to the empty promises and lies they spoonfeed to their customers.
#30
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:09
HKR148
-
- Members
- 734 messages
I will say this, it doesn't have to be fixing the end so everyone can like whatever. But what they have got to do is to acknowledge the immense injustice they've commited to their trilogy and try doing something about that.
#31
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:09
Kloborgg711
-
- Members
- 833 messages
If you're an author writing a book, or a filmmaker making a movie, then you have complete rights to your own intellectual property. If your story involves tragedy, you're fully in your right to do so. I'm not sure why you'd fool people over a book series into thinking they were going to see a happy ending and then crush them... but you could do that.
Mass Effect was, from the first trailer, our story. There were resolutions they promised us, and they didn't deliver. No, they don't have any legal responsibility, but I'd say they're at least somewhat morally obliged. Especially as a developer that constantly cites its fanbase as such an important factor.
Mass Effect was, from the first trailer, our story. There were resolutions they promised us, and they didn't deliver. No, they don't have any legal responsibility, but I'd say they're at least somewhat morally obliged. Especially as a developer that constantly cites its fanbase as such an important factor.
#32
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:10
Jigero
-
- Members
- 635 messages
Forced no, but when your unanimously vilified by even your most loyal of fans, you're probably doing some thing wrong and might wanna correct that if you wanna keep some sort of positive reputation.
#33
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:10
Kloborgg711
-
- Members
- 833 messages
revo76 wrote...
When actual script leaked people wanted new one, because they were upset about leak. Then BW decided to make newer ending.
According to who ? The fans.
Now we realized that previous enging was more logic so want it. If they can change the ending according to fan reactions, we're showing the same reaction now and they should change the final once again.
That's not what happened, it's a gross simplification.
#34
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:10
Ruari
-
- Members
- 346 messages
No company should be forced to give their customer everything they want. But they should just expect to go out of business if they make a habit of pissing off their customers with bad products. Example not related to games: restaurants. How many restaurants would stay in business if their customers kept saying "this dish is awful, please change it" and they didn't? Answer: look at the large number of vacant restaurants now.
#35
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:11
HKR148
-
- Members
- 734 messages
Kloborgg711 wrote...
If you're an author writing a book, or a filmmaker making a movie, then you have complete rights to your own intellectual property. If your story involves tragedy, you're fully in your right to do so. I'm not sure why you'd fool people over a book series into thinking they were going to see a happy ending and then crush them... but you could do that.
Mass Effect was, from the first trailer, our story. There were resolutions they promised us, and they didn't deliver. No, they don't have any legal responsibility, but I'd say they're at least somewhat morally obliged. Especially as a developer that constantly cites its fanbase as such an important factor.
Exactly, henceforth why Sir Arthur Conan Doyle changed his mind and retconned Sherlock Holmes to continue his legendary series. To be honest with you, if I were the story-writer, what I've done at the ending would haunt me forever til death, I seriously wonder how they actually are feeling.
Modifié par HKR148, 11 mars 2012 - 05:12 .
#36
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:11
Hebrew42hammer
-
- Members
- 76 messages
I bring up this forced thing when I read things about email bombs, phone bombs, petitions.... and I wonder should this type of acting be listened to by deveopers? In my mind, no. Most of it too me is silly. Im pretty sure bioware is reading the forums (as they ahve with all games) and they will make changes to make fans happier through some sort of dlc.... But I really dont think emails bombs with demands of doing xyz or I wont buy dlc is a good method to ensure creativity in the gaming world.
#37
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:13
Meltemph
-
- Members
- 3 892 messages
Whybother wrote...
No.
But as an ex-game dev, I would have been remiss in not giving my loyal fanbase a satisfying and, yes, "happy" ending.
I disagree that a "happy" ending was needed. Just a good one that made more sense. DNA/Matter changing(Killall synthetics or merge organics and synthetics) lasers a coherent ending it is not.
#38
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:13
Scott Sion
-
- Members
- 913 messages
People have have invest so much time and emotion into they can't just accept the current way ME3 ends. Did I expect there to be and ending where Shepard dies, the reapers win, or both? Hell yes, but did I think there might be one ending where the galaxy is saved and Shepard lives? Yes, I did as did many others.
Oh, and lets not forget that the only difference bewteen the endings are the colors of an explosion. Killing off Shepard and destroying the ME universe wasn't enough they had to give us 3 different endings where the only difference is the color of an explosion. Seriously? If Bioware thinks that they can keep the ending as is and keep their fan base then they're pretty naive.
Oh, and lets not forget that the only difference bewteen the endings are the colors of an explosion. Killing off Shepard and destroying the ME universe wasn't enough they had to give us 3 different endings where the only difference is the color of an explosion. Seriously? If Bioware thinks that they can keep the ending as is and keep their fan base then they're pretty naive.
#39
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:14
stwu
-
- Members
- 314 messages
Yes and no. Like any other bussines they have to put out a quality product that appeals to buyers.
While you can't please everyone you can listen to your audience, they knew that the spoilers had been leaked and instead of delaying the game and adding more content and CHOICES they ignored the feedback, however small it was. I didn't read the script but the word around here wasn't positive.
While you can't please everyone you can listen to your audience, they knew that the spoilers had been leaked and instead of delaying the game and adding more content and CHOICES they ignored the feedback, however small it was. I didn't read the script but the word around here wasn't positive.
#40
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:14
Legendaryred
-
- Members
- 921 messages
If they want us to keep buying their games then yes, otherwise not. I doubt a casual gamer would be interested in buying the ME comics or art or figures, only a fan would buy those. So they leech us first then they do this ****?
#41
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:14
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
Should they be forced? No.
Should we voice our objections relative to the intensity of those objections. Yes.
Would it be in their best interests to listen to us on this point? Almost certainly.
Should we voice our objections relative to the intensity of those objections. Yes.
Would it be in their best interests to listen to us on this point? Almost certainly.
#42
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:14
Makatak
-
- Members
- 381 messages
Gaming companies are free to publish whatever they want. However, it is their burden to make us want to buy it. You can't publish any "thing" and then say, "Look, I have made this awesome thing! Now pay me $20." Since the fan base is the primary demographic, it would behoove an intelligent company to cater to them, with minor tweaks and additions that they can upsell to continue to increase their primary demographic's berth.
That said, a fan base cannot be the driving point of an idea. We, the consumer, have no idea what games are capable of doing, or what goes on pretty much in any step before the retail store (to varying degrees). If the fans were the only source of input and feedback, all games would look like Call of Duty, and no one really wants that...okay, some people want that, but they don't deserve to have an input anyways.
Originality is a key value in development, but I'm personally of the opinion that major franchises, which I would count Mass Effect among (as compared to, say, Bastion), should stick with what made them major franchises. People buy Final Fantasy because they like the "taste" of Final Fantasy. People buy Call of Duty because they like the "feel" of Call of Duty. If a game were ever to be released that was in either franchise that didn't "taste" or "feel" like what the core base has come to expect (imagine a third person cover-based shooter CoD or a first-person Final Fantasy experience) it would be strange, and it would likely alienate a large portion of the consumer base.
Example: When Armored Core 4 was released, its only similarity to Armored Core 3 (in fact, all of the previous Armored Cores) was that it had giant, customizable robots. The combat, which was a core element of the game, was significantly overhauled, and I took the dang thing back. It suddenly felt like Dynasty Warriors: Customizable Robot. It wasn't the game I had invested in previously, and I haven't bought another Armored Core product since. However, when Mass Effect 1 made the jump to 2, it also overhauled the combat; however, it kept core elements and a story from 1 -- the dialogue wheel felt exactly the same, the level of choice and integration felt very near to the same. Paragon, renegade, it all made sense. Yes, the Mako was gone...but thank god, the Mako was gone!
What I think the fan base here is lashing out over is not that the endings are "bad" as in the opposite of "happy." They're "bad" as in "poorly-written and thought out." That's a general distinction that supporters of the ending are not making. Mass Effect has, up until 3, had some great writing. But when directors or teams change, the entire vision gets blurry. Mass Effect 3 got blurry. It took some of the gameplay elements and changed them, supposedly to acquire new fans for the core base. By teaming up with Battlefield 3, I suppose that EA/Bioware wanted to try to drag the CoD/BF3 fanbase into their fold, but to try to get people in to the Mass Effect 2 experience would probably be difficult -- it's a large jump from BF3 to ME2...
If I was to guess, I would say that the "streamlining" of dialogue that we see, where Shepard and his talkee have several exchanges before a choice pops up again, is a direct feedback from early playtesters from the CoD/BF3 demographic. I make this assumption because I have a few of those friends, and their primary criticism of ME1/ME2 is that it's too long, too expansive, there's too much to do, and there's so much guiding one needs to do in the talking. When pointed out that the right options close conversations, they then say that they're completionists and want to listen to everything, want to do everything, want that 100% completion at the end of Playthrough 1. You can see the effects of this "fan feedback" in the final product of the game.
So you be the judge. If my last paragraph is accurate, then that is the effect of fan feedback. But also, switching out the Mako for the planet scanner, changing the combat to cover-based and making it more fast-paced -- these were great changes from 1 to 2, and they couldn't have happened without fan feedback.
That said, a fan base cannot be the driving point of an idea. We, the consumer, have no idea what games are capable of doing, or what goes on pretty much in any step before the retail store (to varying degrees). If the fans were the only source of input and feedback, all games would look like Call of Duty, and no one really wants that...okay, some people want that, but they don't deserve to have an input anyways.
Originality is a key value in development, but I'm personally of the opinion that major franchises, which I would count Mass Effect among (as compared to, say, Bastion), should stick with what made them major franchises. People buy Final Fantasy because they like the "taste" of Final Fantasy. People buy Call of Duty because they like the "feel" of Call of Duty. If a game were ever to be released that was in either franchise that didn't "taste" or "feel" like what the core base has come to expect (imagine a third person cover-based shooter CoD or a first-person Final Fantasy experience) it would be strange, and it would likely alienate a large portion of the consumer base.
Example: When Armored Core 4 was released, its only similarity to Armored Core 3 (in fact, all of the previous Armored Cores) was that it had giant, customizable robots. The combat, which was a core element of the game, was significantly overhauled, and I took the dang thing back. It suddenly felt like Dynasty Warriors: Customizable Robot. It wasn't the game I had invested in previously, and I haven't bought another Armored Core product since. However, when Mass Effect 1 made the jump to 2, it also overhauled the combat; however, it kept core elements and a story from 1 -- the dialogue wheel felt exactly the same, the level of choice and integration felt very near to the same. Paragon, renegade, it all made sense. Yes, the Mako was gone...but thank god, the Mako was gone!
What I think the fan base here is lashing out over is not that the endings are "bad" as in the opposite of "happy." They're "bad" as in "poorly-written and thought out." That's a general distinction that supporters of the ending are not making. Mass Effect has, up until 3, had some great writing. But when directors or teams change, the entire vision gets blurry. Mass Effect 3 got blurry. It took some of the gameplay elements and changed them, supposedly to acquire new fans for the core base. By teaming up with Battlefield 3, I suppose that EA/Bioware wanted to try to drag the CoD/BF3 fanbase into their fold, but to try to get people in to the Mass Effect 2 experience would probably be difficult -- it's a large jump from BF3 to ME2...
If I was to guess, I would say that the "streamlining" of dialogue that we see, where Shepard and his talkee have several exchanges before a choice pops up again, is a direct feedback from early playtesters from the CoD/BF3 demographic. I make this assumption because I have a few of those friends, and their primary criticism of ME1/ME2 is that it's too long, too expansive, there's too much to do, and there's so much guiding one needs to do in the talking. When pointed out that the right options close conversations, they then say that they're completionists and want to listen to everything, want to do everything, want that 100% completion at the end of Playthrough 1. You can see the effects of this "fan feedback" in the final product of the game.
So you be the judge. If my last paragraph is accurate, then that is the effect of fan feedback. But also, switching out the Mako for the planet scanner, changing the combat to cover-based and making it more fast-paced -- these were great changes from 1 to 2, and they couldn't have happened without fan feedback.
Modifié par Makatak, 11 mars 2012 - 05:20 .
#43
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:14
Burnham1
-
- Members
- 145 messages
Nobody is forcing them to do anything, because they always have the option to ignore the pleas of their fan base. The problem is they have to deal with whatever the repercussions of that will be. This is a huge issue. It isn't something small they can blow off and expect no negative side-effects. People will abandon ship and stop supporting the company because of this issue. The question is simply, how many, and will it be enough to put a dent in Bioware's future profits for their up-coming games in the next few years? Are they wiling to risk alienating their fans and assume the negative backlash won't be enough to hurt the company, or are they going to try to appease the people they should be creating the games for and give the community the product they want?
Modifié par Burnham1, 11 mars 2012 - 05:15 .
#44
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:15
Craven1138
-
- Members
- 244 messages
Ahh reductio ad absurdum, typical. OP should just go.
#45
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:15
vigna
-
- Members
- 1 947 messages
If they had to do what I wanted them to...they'd remake KOTOR with today's tech , and add some stuff. I would rather have an updated KOTOR than a new franchise honestly...
#46
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:16
paynesgrey
-
- Members
- 197 messages
Hebrew42hammer wrote...
Im taking this in a software development mindset as a person who has worked on video games.
I already know, if you make all fans happy you make money, and profit.
Is it ok for a game company to say we have a vision for our game and it will end like this regardless how the fan base feels about it? Kind of a, we will hurt a few but keep what we think an artwork perfect to us. In bioware's case, did they trick us into think the ending should of been more flexible then we thought it was going to be?
Im curious for some discussion on this because one day I may be making games that are in wide distribution played by commuinities like this one, and i'd like to know how the community feels.
We have beaten the horse to death on plot holes and happy endings, but is some of the blame also on the consumer for hoping an ending would be a specific way? Even though I dislike how the ending felt, I know the game dev's love this game and series, anyone does who works on a project like this.
Should consumers be silent when the product does not meet their desires? Bioware's strength, whcih they just flushed down the commode, was that they gave different players a variety of ways to get what they seperately wanted.
They have a right to end a game in a way they know will enrage their customes and ruin the franchise... but it's not the smart way to do business. A writer kills off his main character, he can expect to lose viewers/ratings/etc. And he shouldn't be surprised if those readers/watchers won't give his next product a chance.
Many roads to many endings pleased the most players/customers, and gave the franchise a great advantage over the competition. BIoware not only rejected that approach, but it did so in a way that retroactively applied to ME1 adn ME2 as well.
#47
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:16
Scott Sion
-
- Members
- 913 messages
Meltemph wrote...
Whybother wrote...
No.
But as an ex-game dev, I would have been remiss in not giving my loyal fanbase a satisfying and, yes, "happy" ending.
I disagree that a "happy" ending was needed. Just a good one that made more sense. DNA/Matter changing(Killall synthetics or merge organics and synthetics) lasers a coherent ending it is not.
Well seeing as Bioware lets us get so attached to the ME universe and its characters I think it's only fair they give us at least one happy ending.
#48
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:16
heretica
-
- Members
- 1 906 messages
The thing is, this stuff could be easily avoided. They KNEW what they were doing when they decided to add this ending. They KNEW it would have consequences.
The damage is done, we'll see how things go.
The damage is done, we'll see how things go.
#49
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:17
tamperous
-
- Members
- 745 messages
NO they should have a vision but game companies should know the medium they are working in well enough to understand the limitations on what works.
People play games to live through characters; they want to make decsions that matter in the context of the story they are playing. If players wanted to be railroaded with several unsavory choices and wonder if the weeks of time spent on a goal was wasted, they could just get up and go to work.
So a mega artsy ending may work for a movie or novel but not really a game where players expect their 'work' to pay off in the end.
People play games to live through characters; they want to make decsions that matter in the context of the story they are playing. If players wanted to be railroaded with several unsavory choices and wonder if the weeks of time spent on a goal was wasted, they could just get up and go to work.
So a mega artsy ending may work for a movie or novel but not really a game where players expect their 'work' to pay off in the end.
#50
Posté 11 mars 2012 - 05:18
OMTING52601
-
- Members
- 565 messages
I understand what you're asking OP, but philosophy and business don't really have a lot in common, IMO. Philosophically speaking, the creative directors of the game/story/movie have every right to stick to their creative idea for the project and follow it through, so in that regard, sure EA/BW can do whatever they like with their intellectual properties, regardless of how the consumer base responds.
But EA/BW isn't a philosophical idea or think tank. It's a corporation and the bottom line for corporations is profit/loss. In that regard, said business needs, not wants not desires, needs to offer/provide products consumers want to buy. If they fail to achieve this then profits decline as does consumer confidence. (I'm not in anyway saying Mass Effect 3 will be a fiscal loss - I don't have any data to support or deny that and I won't offer supposition as proof.) In short, whether the creators can/will stick to their guns in this case will likely boil down to how short profit expectations fall, should they at all.
But EA/BW isn't a philosophical idea or think tank. It's a corporation and the bottom line for corporations is profit/loss. In that regard, said business needs, not wants not desires, needs to offer/provide products consumers want to buy. If they fail to achieve this then profits decline as does consumer confidence. (I'm not in anyway saying Mass Effect 3 will be a fiscal loss - I don't have any data to support or deny that and I won't offer supposition as proof.) In short, whether the creators can/will stick to their guns in this case will likely boil down to how short profit expectations fall, should they at all.
