125 réponses à ce sujet

[Hebrew42hammer]

Feops1 wrote...

Well there's really two questions here. This is pretty close to home as I do project works for software myself.

First is "do the developers care what the fan base wants?"
Second is "do the developers understand what the fan base wants?"

The answer to the first question is that the developers are under no obligation whatsoever to release anything agreeable to anyone. The balance they have to work out amongst themselves is that as a business they ideally want to release a product that people will purchase, and even more, they want to develop a loyal fan base. Any business knows that the value of retaining a customer is much greater than the effort of recruiting a new one. So when they chase after an ideal of sorts they have to temper it against the reality of business. Mass Effect has an interesting position that they were pretty much assured success on the game itself, but they faced an immense amount of attention regarding their fan base and long term prospects. Will people be interested in Bioware's next game or series? It will depend a lot on their thoughts on ME3 and DA2. My own opinion is that if Bioware goes on to release a Dragon Age 3, that they will suffer much diminished profits owing to negative user feedback from DA2. So it goes.

The answer to the second question is usually the job of an analyst or project lead of some sort to figure out what a customer really wants when they ask for a given thing (this is what I do actually). Customers are a huge and varied group, and you cannot possibly make everyone happy, but there are common themes that will appease the majority of fans and attract new ones. Getting the exact ending that everyone wants is more or impossible, but getting an ending that the majority of customers appreciate and understand as consistent to the themes of the game, and living up to the marketing of choice and impact, are reasonable goals and reasonable expectations. This is why there is such a resonance of disappointment from the fan base - the details are almost irrelevant, but the end result that was given was sloppy and made little sense so nobody appreciated it.

Thats awesome feedback! just with that I am glad I made the topic.

[SolidisusSnake1]

MPSai wrote...

There comes a point where a property becomes a cultural phenomenon, and at that point it belongs just as much to the fanbase. I think by that point a company owes it to the fans to ship a quality product and a story with a satisfying conclusion. They should want to do it for their art as well. Listening to some of the devs lamely defend the ending makes me think they know its crap but they didn't have the time to come up with anything better.

This. Look at the Star Wars prequels Lucas has total control and doesnt listen to anyone ebcause they are "his" movies, and guess what they sucked. So yes there come a point where you have to listen to the fanbase you have created, of course you can do your own thing just dont expect people to buy it.

[Superninfreak]

It honestly depends on what ends up making a better game. Doing everything the fans want can end up with a sloppy game, but they should always listen to feedback.

If the fans are complaining over nothing, stick to your guns, if the fans have a point, accommodate them.

That's subjective but it's kind of hard to not be subjective when talking about storytelling.

[Epiph1]

I think you have to look at the how the gaming experience had been set out throughout the series.

Clearly with the idea of Paragon/Renegade choices players expected that a whole range of responses and conclusions would be available as a result. They always have been in the past even when attempting a 'suicide' mission. If you had made certain choices along the way it became a triumphant ending.

This ending removed the element of choice and nuance of response that the players had come to expect. In a sense I think that's a violation of the developer-gamer contract that essentially had developed over the course of the games.

I mean you don't buy Halo 1 and 2, play and love those, and then be okay with the production of Halo: My Little Pony. That's a direct break in the format of the games. It would cause an uproar also. Consistency with a product is as important as the quality of it. Especially when you ask people to come along for a 5 year ride. All sense of immersion is lost when the style and format of a game changes in the final moments.

[Crash Okami]

No.

Nowadays, every single fanbase I've encountered have a, at least, considerable amount of paranoid, whining babies who want everything done their way. Flooding the forums with tears and topics, and threatening or calling names the developers/writers/everything because of things not being exactly how they want them to be.

If you listen to your fanbase too much, you limit your own freedom, creativity, and end up alienating an amount of fans to appeal to another amount of fans. Since you can never please everyone, just stick to what you want to do, take fan feedback into consideration, but leave it at that. Don't let the fans dictate what you do. I want to work in the industry, I'm doing my best to achieve it, and every day I get more disgusted with how the gaming audience has evolved over the decades.

[Pottumuusi]

If they want people to buy their games in the future then yes they should.

[doagrl]

Hebrew42hammer wrote...

well yes if you please 100% of the people you WILL stay in business, but there is a group of people who view gaming as an artform. Is it so wrong to express yourself through a game even if some wont get it? I feel that a view on profit alone can make games just copies of other successful ones.

Why take that chance at trying something you have no idea if anyone will like... if profit is easier elsewhere? In biowares case I think they wanted an emotiona impact so huge the way they did it was perfect for their ends. I guess with people miffed about biowares ending, all the feedback is likely to be, yes they should... but some great games have come from ideas people thought would fail.... maybe bioware tried to do this, but it just wasnt a move that worked for the community.

A lot of what you're saying changes depending on the type of game you are trying to make and sell people. I have played many (many) Japanese rpgs which were so out there I would need a developer to literally sit with me as I played and explain every single thing in order to understand what was going on. And that's fine because for the most part those kinds of games are storybooks that guide a player where they want you to go. The level of decision making and character building is minimal and you know from the start that you are simply playing in someone else's sandbox.  

However, a western rpg series that sells itself as a game all about your choices is different. For almost 3 games we had the freedom to craft our own characters and in many ways create our own universes on top of the company's template so I can't get behind a company who chooses to throw all of that away under the pretense of artistic expression. If Bioware feels like telling "arty" stories where they guide the player on the road that they want them to go on then fine, I don't have a problem with that, I would just say wait until whatever your new game series is before you start. Because I do have a problem that they chose to throw me a change up in the last act of a game series that I've been playing for five years when I was expecting (and all signs were pointing to) a fastball down the middle. They've basically changed the direction of this game in the last 10 minutes of the third and final act, who could have possibly considered that a good idea. That's not artistic expression that's just a complete lack of respect for your fanbase.

[Ameno Xiel]

YeNo.

Or better - they shouldn't have to be forced in the first way! I won't go into detail why, so just to give you an example:

The last company which didn't listen to their fans and was (in my opinion) relatively similar to Bioware was Jowood. (loved their Gothic franchise)

Now most of you won't know the story of what happened to them so let's just say a big part was they didn't listen to their community/fans critic.

They filled for bankruptcy in 2011.

[sgtrock]

Too an extent

[Fair34]

They shouldn't really take orders from the fans but they also must make sure that the fans remain fans. I just can't believe Bioware thought that ending the series this way would make majority of the fans happy.

[Paulinius]

Just be truthful with your customers, that's all I ask.

Don't tell me your game has "x" feature when in actuality it does not.

[Hebrew42hammer]

is there any solace for bioware due to the fact they wanted to give the community a non-leaked ending in short order? Im sure it crossed Biowares mind to push back a release for more time to work... but fans that preorder can cause quite an uproar over that... and if the publishers says no then.... they are kind of stuck.

[Evil_medved]

Yes.

[-Merk-]

Oh heck no, Bioware can do whatever the heck they want. If they want to choose to nullify all my choices with a "pick your color" ending, then that's their right. They are making the content.

As the consumer, I have the right to vote with my wallet. I can express my distaste for Bioware's story-writing by not pre-ordering any more of their games. It's a two way street.

[Lianaar]

I like this topic. I didn't play the game trough yet, but I read the massive feedback and I was wondering the exact same question.

I wouldn't be in Bioware's shoes now, since not changing the ending will make people see them as stubborn anti-fan company on a high horse.
Changing the ending will make them appear money hungry crowd appeasers, who can be pushed around by a few hundred or thousand people.
Finding a third alternative (as in not changing the ending, but offering something else, a different closure that pleases the masses) is the challenge.

A few explanations, yes, I wrote a few hundred or thousand people. This is the forums and it is only representative for a segment of the fans. The forum visiting segment. We, the customers presently have no means to know how buyers of the game really think about it. We can easily see how forum visitors think. Being the loudest doesn't make a group the most lucrative. It might be the same group, but might be totally different groups.

I expect the company to sell something they can give their name to. So they should sell something they believe in. No matter how well they know customers and their wishes, if they do not believe in their own work, it'll suck in the end. So yes, it is their story which is shared with us.

I personally don't think an unliked ending will make people not buy new bioware games. A new game comes out and people go "Oh, I hated that other game from them, so I won't buy this one"... not likely. I can easily see people saying: this game has a dlc? I disliked the game, I won't buy the dlc. However that other game....

I hope they come up with an alternative solution, because I don't want to think that a company I respect for their stories can give up on those stories just because people complain.

I was also considering the suggestion that they wish to make other stories and games in this universe. I always wondered how that is possible with Shepard's story, since the reapers must be gone in some manner. So they can not be the main enemy any more, then what should we fight against in the next games? (No next Shepard game, but next Mass Effect game). Maybe these endings open possibilities for other massive stories? Who knows.

[Savvie]

No, they have the right to stick to their vision of the game, however they must remember we as the customers help keep them going financially. I see developers saying all the time they want to make games that we the fanbase will enjoy including Bioware. What's the purpose of making a game that will make the fans angry? I would think the point of being a game developer is you are passionate about gaming and want to make something great for others to play.

Mass Effect 3 was an amazing game up till the end, it's probably my favorite of the triology. Yet I feel Bioware really fell short with the endings. It's clear there was a lack of time, thought and creativity put into the endings. That's bound to make many fans angry after investing so much money, time and emotion into these three games. The fans deserved a good closure to Shepard's story and in my opinion we didn't get that.

[WarBaby2]

Simple answer: It depends on the product.

Explained: When I create and interactive, immersive, story driven experience, that I even advertise as "made with the players for the players" then I better listen closely to my potential customers... or I'll risk loosing all trust and credebility I may have built with my selected target group.

BioWare made the mistake to "not listen closely" more then once in the past...

Modifié par WarBaby2, 11 mars 2012 - 07:01 .

[Pedro Costa]

fish of doom wrote...

it's not "doing whatever the fanbase wants". it's "not betraying them by flushing your own trilogy down the toilet with an arbitrary ass pull that makes no sense and ruins everything that the series has stood for since its inception".

Pretty much this.
You have to be selective. If only a few people complain, do nothing, statistically it's irrelevant and there'll always be people unhappy about something.
If a fractured fanbase that squabbles over everything actually almost unanimously agrees something is wrong, then something is wrong, however.

Besides, it's not like we want these endings stricken out of existence, if BioWare likes them and 3% of players do aswell, then, by all means, keep them.
It'd be highly hypocritical of us to ask for endings to our satisfaction and deny those who like the current ones, few as they may be, their endings.
No, what we want are MORE endings added in order to satisfy the most players possible (this would also make so that the prior dev claims of "many endings" doesn't sound like BS and false advertising); endings where our choices matter in some form (like the poll titled "DLC or patch could add a fourth option: REFUSE") and range from happy-happy to Reapers Win.

[JamesYHT]

Not everything, and this the thing they should do, ok. don't mislead the topic, a terrible ending is a terrible ending. it's a fact. not because we complaint about it.

[aimlessgun]

Hebrew42hammer wrote...
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?

I think they did in fact lie about how the ending would go down in their marketing. But to the main question, no, we have no right to force them to do anything. But we do have the right to criticize their work and ask for a redo. No harm in asking. 

As for their obligations,  are they obligated to do what we want (beyond money reasons)? No. But they are obligated to make an ending that doesn't flat out suck. I'm aware that some people like the ending, and that many of the reasons for disliking are very personal. But if you get objective about it (or as objective as you can when it comes to storytelling), the ending was just really poorly written and executed. It's not a matter of them not doing what we want. It's a matter of them creating a pile of crap. 

Modifié par aimlessgun, 11 mars 2012 - 07:58 .

[Terraforming2154]

No, they don't have to, obviously. And maybe it is idealistic of me, but I think they should care enough about their fan base to give them more than an ass pull of an ending with either a depressing cliff hanger or a really bizarre one.
They said that this was Shepard's last story before the game was released. It should have had closure for the character and the choices made.

Modifié par Terraforming2154, 11 mars 2012 - 07:59 .

[Feops1]

Hebrew42hammer wrote...

Thats awesome feedback! just with that I am glad I made the topic.

Thanks. I appreciate your feedback on my comments.

To add just a little more, the disconnect here that I see is that many fans are stating that they are wishing for a 'happier' ending, but if I were a project lead here I would interpret this NOT to mean that people are asking for an ending where everything turns up roses and rainbows, but rather one where the player sees some sort of impact in the end. They want to see the results of their efforts on the many fronts they worked at.

So for example, one would expect to see how earth and the other worlds turn out - if they are devastated, if they can rebuild, and such things. The player has cultured such emotional investment through the game into these places but is then left with a giant unknown afterwards. What happens to the squadmates? The love interest? What happens to the alliance? To earth? To the asari? To the quarians and geth? The remaining cerburus forces? The fleet that so heroically sacrificed so many resources to that one final push? Is galatic society fractured or does it somehow keep some aspect of cohesion? Dragon Age: Origins pulled this off very well and in the process had a rather flexible ending with many smaller bits that led to highs and lows at the same time. Mass Effect on the other hand boxed the player into a few very rigid results that essentially disregard player input which is rather unfortunate.

[Hebrew42hammer]

aimlessgun wrote...

Hebrew42hammer wrote...
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?

I think they did in fact lie about how the ending would go down in their marketing. But to the main question, no, we have no right to force them to do anything. But we do have the right to criticize their work and ask for a redo. No harm in asking. 

As for their obligations,  are they obligated to do what we want (beyond money reasons)? No. But they are obligated to make an ending that doesn't flat out suck. I'm aware that some people like the ending, and that many of the reasons for disliking are very personal. But if you get objective about it (or as objective as you can when it comes to storytelling), the ending was just really poorly written and executed. It's not a matter of them not doing what we want. It's a matter of them creating a pile of crap. 

honestly, alot of what people are saying about bioware lieing I never realized. I didnt follow this game as much as alot of you in the community up till release. I played the games alot, but maybe I just wasnt expecting something most were. I was still upset, but less then alot of you I see. And for the other poster, I wasnt trying to mislead a topic. It is my topic and I just wanted to get some input on if other factors are making this issue as bad as it is. I honestly do not think bioware is 100% at fault, I fear EA because I have seen decisions they have made that rubbed me the wrong way about publishers I love. They made money of course, and for a corporation, that is a pretty high goal. Publishers, developers, gamers, in the end none of this matters. I just want to see if some thoughts from other people can change the way I think.

Alot of good feedback here.

[Legbiter]

I don't want Bioware or anybody to change the endings in ME 3 or cater to me specifically in any way, shape or form. If they want to have one ending with 3 filters all of which involve the destruction of the mass relays (presumably Earth, Palaven, Thessia, Rannoch and Tuchanka are disintigrated as a result), the crew stranded on an unknown planet and Shepard either dead or stuck on an exploding space station that's their right.

But damn, that's a bit of a downer, ending-wise. Just saying. Right now ME 3 is the best damn game I ever played. And I never want to replay it ever again.

Modifié par Legbiter, 11 mars 2012 - 08:06 .