125 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonknight31]

Saying the ending is Biowares artistic expression of the series that they created, would be like Van Gogh deciding at the end of every painting that he's going to slap a bit of Andy Warhol on.

The "artistic direction" of the series shifted dramatically in the last 20 minutes of the series. If you have consistency in your brush stroke and your fans approve, KEEP the consistency. Don't go all religious symbology and call it art.

This is on the developers, not the consumer.

[ThomasakaDes_]

Apparently Bioware and EA has hurt most of their fans with the ending, so if they`re smart, they`ll make an alternative ending, a better one of course.
BUT this will very likely become another dlc.
I doubt they will though.

To answer the question in the title:
No, but they should for the most part.
Bethesda is a good example of game dev that does what their fanbase wants, and listen to every single little glitch report and fixes every single little glitch.

[HKR148]

Financial point of view and fanservice point of view, at least giving more variance in the ending and fixing some big problems.... I don't see what could hurt them. Their story's integrity is shot to hell, and there's no such thing as authors of the story should stick to their gun, plenty of well-known book authors changed their mind or retconned the story after communicating with their readers.

[Alamar2078]

Should a game company be "forced" to bow to the wishes of their fans? The obvious answer is no the company should not be directly "forced" to abandon any artistic vision they have.

The other side of the equation also holds. Just because a game company puts out a new product IF they are not giving the fans what they want [and B/W is 0 for the last 2 in my book] then it's perfectly reasonable that the fans don't have to support the company any further.

Simple & neat. Anything else would just tend to clutter the issue.

[BettyBlueGT]

For the ending of Mass Effect 3 Bioware should have been forced by God and the US Government to listen to their fanbase! Because I swear I'm returning this crap monday due to the multiplayer lag and the lack of any of my choices in ME2 having any impact at all.

[Hebrew42hammer]

I do agree, even though I accept the endings(stage 5). It makes it hard to replay. Maybe I will try to run through to see how many bad choices I can make? Seems like the only fitting thing. Need to make the journey extra interesting if the end wont change.

[Almostfaceman]

Bioware has said at least two things that pertain to this issue.

First, they said we'd have widely variable outcomes.

Second, they said they highly value our feedback and take it into consideration.

Their consumers have caught them in a "lie" or "mistake" or "mis-interpretation" on the first statement. The outcomes do not widely vary.

So, since we're used to being somewhat listened to (there are examples of this in ME3 itself) we are trying to talk to Bioware. It just so happens in this instance, there is massive consensus.

Bioware is reaping what they've sown.

Because of these two factors, a mindset of "force this company to do what we want" really isn't even a factor. It's not part of the dynamic. So, the question is moot.

Companies have been getting customer feedback since the beginning of companies. This is nothing new.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 11 mars 2012 - 08:26 .

[Qutayba]

No matter what they did, there would have been some people upset about the endings. You can't please all of the people all of the time. And if they change the endings, some people will be upset about that, too (particularly if they give us a saccharine, condescending ending). BUT, I think these endings are so wrong on so many levels, that they should at least rethink their ending.

I also believe in artistic integrity and being able to stand behind even your crappiest creation. However, video games in the DLC era, unlike books and movies, can be treated as works-in-progress. They may be worried about setting a precedent, but Bioware has taken several hits in their fan-relations department this last year. This would really help patch things up.

So, no, companies shouldn't be "forced" to do anything by their fans. They can't be. But a company that blows off its fanbase will face repercussions down the line.

I'm confident Bioware will at least comment on this issue. Whether we get a different ending is another question.

[Aedan276]

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.

Depends on the circumstances. In this case the game was built up and marketed as something that it ultimately didn't become because of the ending. 

Bioware could have had the end they chose within reason, but forcing our Shepard to go along with Star Child's plans and logic, stranding our companions, and making the Fleet no matter was too much. 

Modifié par Aedan276, 11 mars 2012 - 08:39 .

[DadeLeviathan]

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.

No, game companies can do whatever they want with their products. If they wanted to have an ending where the entire mass effect story turned out to be a dream that Shepard had, and we find out that Shepard is actually a dying cancer patient who created this entire universe to explain his fight with cancer, that would be perfectly fine. It would be kind of ridiculous and would ****** a lot of people off, but it's within Bioware's right to do so. The game company has to be willing to accept gamer rage, though. At the end of the day, however, it's Bioware's product. They have all rights to do whatever they like with it. They just need to deal with the repurcussions of any "bad" decisions they make.

[OblivionDawn]

Considering we pay their bills, yeah they should be at least inclined to cater to their fan base, if not obligated.

[BrunoBerg]

It's their story after all, and they have no obligation to change it if they don't want to. I don't want them to completely turn the ending into some super happy sunshine ending either, that would be real sad. I do however think they executed the ending very poorly with a few obvious plotholes. Sorting out my teleporting squadmates and give me a text line saying what happend to everyone would be enough to save it for me. I didn't expect survivors, I was sad by thinking that my squad and my LI died running to the beam but that's fine, huge casualties were expected. Teleportation is not okay.

Modifié par BrunoBerg, 11 mars 2012 - 08:44 .

[Hebrew42hammer]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Bioware has said at least two things that pertain to this issue.

First, they said we'd have widely variable outcomes.

Second, they said they highly value our feedback and take it into consideration.

Their consumers have caught them in a "lie" or "mistake" or "mis-interpretation" on the first statement. The outcomes do not widely vary.

So, since we're used to being somewhat listened to (there are examples of this in ME3 itself) we are trying to talk to Bioware. It just so happens in this instance, there is massive consensus.

Bioware is reaping what they've sown.

Because of these two factors, a mindset of "force this company to do what we want" really isn't even a factor. It's not part of the dynamic. So, the question is moot.

Companies have been getting customer feedback since the beginning of companies. This is nothing new.

The question is in NO WAY moot. Yes, I used the bioware example since it is happening now... but I wanted to try and make a more general conversation. And I admit my statement was pretty stringent, but Im glad the forum users have taken it in more loose contexts of the degrees companies should listen/not listen.

Its just something that is interesting to me to discuss rather then point out more glaring plotholes or trying to spin something that isnt there to help me cope with the ending. And tali's dumb face. (no offence to the girl they took it from, but it was cheap to do:( )

[Epiph1]

On another note I think it's the wrong question to ask.

A company needs to produce products that consumers will desire and buy. In essence every company "panders" to its "fans". If they did not then there would be no marketplace.

The issue here is more that they already have their sales because the consumers take it on trust that the item is as advertised. A large number of people would argue that the product is in fact not fit for consumption (in its final moments). Whilst this may not be a problem initially due to the overall sales totals, it is likely to have a negative impact on future products. Consumers have to trust that their brands are what they have always liked. No one buys, say, McDonalds for 10 years and is happy for it and continues to be happy with it when they switch their beef patty to sawdust suddenly. It is wholly unexpected, undesired and not in keeping with the brand.

[bloodstalker1973]

Game companies should not be forced to do anything. But they also should not be entirely in a vacuum where they start thinking they are in the business of making bold artistic moves at the expense of everything else. They should not lose sight of the fact that they are a part of a business that is, ultimately, dependant on their consumer base to allow them them future opportunities to continue to make games and follow their artistic vision out over the long term.

Look, I'm not saying companies should simply break down and do only what the most vocal element of their fanbase asks for. And I am all for a company expanding it's horizens and taking risks if it wants to. But they have to remain aware that, regardless of what they may think, most of the people playing their games do not think or them as "art" and only think of the end product as entertainment. As such, I think it makes very little sense for a company to make sudden and drastic moves that seperate itself from the tastes of what its fanbase has come to expect.

Now, I am not one of the people complaining about how BW did not give me a happy ending in ME3. I get it, really, the potential for everything to come up roses and puppies in the Reaper storyline is very low. I expected fully that Shepard was likely to die, several of his/her squadmates would die, and perhaps entire civilizations would be decimated and destroyed. I was actually expecting and ending that was bleak. What I was not expecting was to be lied to from the beginning.

BW marketed this entire series on the basis that your choices would matter in this series in a way it never had in any other series. That was their major selling point throughout, and they filled the internet with quotes about how drastically different everyones game would be at the end and how all the choices would make each ending dfeeply personal and reflective of each persons playthroughs. Instead. at the end of the game, you get three arbitrary endings that your prior choices, which BW spent years building up as the major deciding factor, have absolutely no effect on.

Now, BW has every right to do this, but they should have realized that many fans were going to look at the endings and automatically think they had been lied to from the beginning. Was it within their rights as the creators of the series to make that decision?Absolutely. But was it sound business pratice? No, it wasn't.

This is the part that any business has to keep firmly in mind. Artistic freedom and integrity is all well and good, but they are dependant on their fanbase to provide them the opportunity to continue to express themselves over the long term. Is it worth it for a company to risk alienating their fanbase to the extent that sales suffer, their budget for future titles shrinks, and they in effect risk their ability to continue making games because people , start to become disillusioned with the brand? That is a decision for the company to make of course, but it is ludicrous to think that , just because a company has reached a high level of populartiy, that they have a general pass to be able to disregard the feelings of their fanbase and expect those fans to continue buying games regardless of how those games make the fans feel.

I can tell you this much in regards to ME3. It left a very bad taste in my mouth, and the same goes for a lot of other people. Btween ME3 and DA2, my  most recent impressions of the company are dissappointment. I have more good will built up at the moment for Bethesda after New Vegas and Skyrim than I have for BW. And this is coming from a person who has been a BW fan since baldur's Gate and always considered Bethesda to be second rate in comparison. But the last two games I have played from Bethesda have been moving in a direction I like much better than the last two games I have played by BW.

My money, like most other people, is not unlimited. I am not rich. As a result, I will spend the money I have for gaming on games that I feel have the best chance to captivate me. At the moment, Bethesda and CD Project Red have both vaulted in front of BW on my list of companies. Bethesda listened to it's fanbase with Broken Steel, and Project Red has made it a habit of being very fan friendly in the way DLC and updates to the Witcher series, and neither has sacrificed their integrity to do so. But I am a consumer, and I will take my money to companies where i feel as if the consumer matters. As I said, most of us don't care a bit about any artistic vision the company has and we simply want to play games that engage us from companies who we do not feel are misleading us.

Listening to your fanbase is not a bad thing. I don't know when we came to the point that gaming was "art" and as such was inviulnerable to input from the people that buy the games. You want to be a real artist who doesn;t care what anyone else thinks about your work? Fine, do that, but there is a reason for the sterotypical image of broke artists living in pverty while their work is only appreciated after they die. It is because, if no one else shares your artistic vision, no one else is going to care or buy your end product. I can only speak for myself, but the good will BW has built over the years that allowed me to give them a pass on several recent occasions has eroded to the point that I have no interest in their DLC for this game, nor do I have much interest in their future work. I am no longer confident BW can provide me with thequality I have come to expect, nor can I , after being lied to about how much choices matter in this game, take anything they say seriously at this point.

So, in the end, yes, a game company can pretty much do anything it wants to do. It has every right to ignore the fanbase if it so chooses. But, it also need to remain aware of the fact that if they continually ignore the wants of their fans, and their games continue to leave people with a bad taste in their mouth, people will begin to stop caring and their sales will over time diminish. The basic misconception companies seem to have is that they are selling an artistic vision. They are not. They are selling an experience. So long as people enjoy that experience, they come back for more. When they stop enjoying it, the stop coming back. believe me, there are many companies that were huge at one time who got cocky and arrogant in the way they started dictating their own vision to their customers that are no longer around. Ask them it if was worth it to ignore the wants of their fanbase. No company should ever get to feeling they are to big to be brought down by bad decision making. Hell, that is why Bioware got so big in the first place was because it cared about its fanbase and provided a level of excellance in their games that was sorely lacking in other companies. So yes, be artistic if you want, but don't forget the fans that put you on top and gave you the opportunity to express your artistic vision in the first place.

Just my very long 2 cents, but the short of it is,
Yes, the company can do whatever it wants.
No, it's not smart to do so at the risk of alienating your fanbase buy not taking them into account at all.

[Solduri]

bloodstalker1973 wrote...

Game companies should not be forced to do anything. But they also should not be entirely in a vacuum where they start thinking they are in the business of making bold artistic moves at the expense of everything else. They should not lose sight of the fact that they are a part of a business that is, ultimately, dependant on their consumer base to allow them them future opportunities to continue to make games and follow their artistic vision out over the long term.

Look, I'm not saying companies should simply break down and do only what the most vocal element of their fanbase asks for. And I am all for a company expanding it's horizens and taking risks if it wants to. But they have to remain aware that, regardless of what they may think, most of the people playing their games do not think or them as "art" and only think of the end product as entertainment. As such, I think it makes very little sense for a company to make sudden and drastic moves that seperate itself from the tastes of what its fanbase has come to expect.

Now, I am not one of the people complaining about how BW did not give me a happy ending in ME3. I get it, really, the potential for everything to come up roses and puppies in the Reaper storyline is very low. I expected fully that Shepard was likely to die, several of his/her squadmates would die, and perhaps entire civilizations would be decimated and destroyed. I was actually expecting and ending that was bleak. What I was not expecting was to be lied to from the beginning.

BW marketed this entire series on the basis that your choices would matter in this series in a way it never had in any other series. That was their major selling point throughout, and they filled the internet with quotes about how drastically different everyones game would be at the end and how all the choices would make each ending dfeeply personal and reflective of each persons playthroughs. Instead. at the end of the game, you get three arbitrary endings that your prior choices, which BW spent years building up as the major deciding factor, have absolutely no effect on.

Now, BW has every right to do this, but they should have realized that many fans were going to look at the endings and automatically think they had been lied to from the beginning. Was it within their rights as the creators of the series to make that decision?Absolutely. But was it sound business pratice? No, it wasn't.

This is the part that any business has to keep firmly in mind. Artistic freedom and integrity is all well and good, but they are dependant on their fanbase to provide them the opportunity to continue to express themselves over the long term. Is it worth it for a company to risk alienating their fanbase to the extent that sales suffer, their budget for future titles shrinks, and they in effect risk their ability to continue making games because people , start to become disillusioned with the brand? That is a decision for the company to make of course, but it is ludicrous to think that , just because a company has reached a high level of populartiy, that they have a general pass to be able to disregard the feelings of their fanbase and expect those fans to continue buying games regardless of how those games make the fans feel.

I can tell you this much in regards to ME3. It left a very bad taste in my mouth, and the same goes for a lot of other people. Btween ME3 and DA2, my  most recent impressions of the company are dissappointment. I have more good will built up at the moment for Bethesda after New Vegas and Skyrim than I have for BW. And this is coming from a person who has been a BW fan since baldur's Gate and always considered Bethesda to be second rate in comparison. But the last two games I have played from Bethesda have been moving in a direction I like much better than the last two games I have played by BW.

My money, like most other people, is not unlimited. I am not rich. As a result, I will spend the money I have for gaming on games that I feel have the best chance to captivate me. At the moment, Bethesda and CD Project Red have both vaulted in front of BW on my list of companies. Bethesda listened to it's fanbase with Broken Steel, and Project Red has made it a habit of being very fan friendly in the way DLC and updates to the Witcher series, and neither has sacrificed their integrity to do so. But I am a consumer, and I will take my money to companies where i feel as if the consumer matters. As I said, most of us don't care a bit about any artistic vision the company has and we simply want to play games that engage us from companies who we do not feel are misleading us.

Listening to your fanbase is not a bad thing. I don't know when we came to the point that gaming was "art" and as such was inviulnerable to input from the people that buy the games. You want to be a real artist who doesn;t care what anyone else thinks about your work? Fine, do that, but there is a reason for the sterotypical image of broke artists living in pverty while their work is only appreciated after they die. It is because, if no one else shares your artistic vision, no one else is going to care or buy your end product. I can only speak for myself, but the good will BW has built over the years that allowed me to give them a pass on several recent occasions has eroded to the point that I have no interest in their DLC for this game, nor do I have much interest in their future work. I am no longer confident BW can provide me with thequality I have come to expect, nor can I , after being lied to about how much choices matter in this game, take anything they say seriously at this point.

So, in the end, yes, a game company can pretty much do anything it wants to do. It has every right to ignore the fanbase if it so chooses. But, it also need to remain aware of the fact that if they continually ignore the wants of their fans, and their games continue to leave people with a bad taste in their mouth, people will begin to stop caring and their sales will over time diminish. The basic misconception companies seem to have is that they are selling an artistic vision. They are not. They are selling an experience. So long as people enjoy that experience, they come back for more. When they stop enjoying it, the stop coming back. believe me, there are many companies that were huge at one time who got cocky and arrogant in the way they started dictating their own vision to their customers that are no longer around. Ask them it if was worth it to ignore the wants of their fanbase. No company should ever get to feeling they are to big to be brought down by bad decision making. Hell, that is why Bioware got so big in the first place was because it cared about its fanbase and provided a level of excellance in their games that was sorely lacking in other companies. So yes, be artistic if you want, but don't forget the fans that put you on top and gave you the opportunity to express your artistic vision in the first place.

Just my very long 2 cents, but the short of it is,
Yes, the company can do whatever it wants.
No, it's not smart to do so at the risk of alienating your fanbase buy not taking them into account at all.

quoted for truth

[TcomJ]

Well, they want it to be the best of the best game out there. That's what Bioware has been saying for the last two years, so they spent all the time perfecting the game.

The thing is, the only people that can hold it as the best game ever is.... the customers who bought the games and played, particularly the one that follow it since the first1.

If majority of the fans are not happy with the product, how could they accepted it at a very near perfect standard?

[TcomJ]

It's not about that there are only bad endings, the endings don't make freaking sense when Joker start to jump away from the blast. It's like I'm busy fighting the reaper and then suddenly he knows that the blast faster than the speed of light is coming his way and decide to jump out of the battle in 3 secs....Then he landed it this random world.

Here is my proposal:

1) Instead of Joker try to fly away from blast to some mysterious place, change that to he didn't notice the blast is coming out from Mass Relay and that corner him to land on earth. Keep the destruction of the mass relays, it's fine.


*For blue and green, Joker doesn't realize the danger imminent to the ships and didn't use the jump to run away to a mysterious world instantly right after the Battle of the Reaper? The energy obviously travels faster than light, and this guy somehow knows to run away when they are all busy fighting the reapers? pfff com'on... Blue blasts ability can only control the reaper and the destruct of mass relay because of overload energy, which massrelay can respond to. The green as well,... but it's like turning everyone to have illusive man's eyes lol

*The red would make sense with the endings we have where Joker and Survivors stuck on a random planet, EDI in the ship detected the danger of the beam that would harm any computers, engines, robot....etc warn Joker and try to run away.

2) Add more after story conclusions of each individual races that were saved and what happen to the Character that survive (and also tell which one really die). We all know the one that survive are all stuck on earth lol.

* you know, regardless of what I do, Joker, Kaidan, and Liara came out of the ship.... what about the rest? Presumably dead? Really! With my 6341 EMR? Com'on!!!

That's about it, well writen endings!!!

Modifié par TcomJ, 11 mars 2012 - 09:20 .

[SuperVulcan]

No, but they should consider us fans, some of us may have goos ideas.

[Tony208]

Game companies Bioware included shouldn't cave on every little thing the fans want. But, when the fanbase is in near universal agreement over something as important as this, then they should appease to the fans.

You can say the BSN is just a small portion of the overall customer base but this small customer base is the one that will purchase all of the DLC, books, comics, the memorabilia, and the lithographs that are now going for hundreds of eBay.

A lot of fans that post on forums other than BSN agree with us about the ending.

Modifié par Tony208, 11 mars 2012 - 09:21 .

[The Almighty Ali]

Not everything, but if a huge part of the community agree upon one thing needed to be improved then it should be considered atleast.

[TcomJ]

The issues are about the endings are not well written at all. They left the fan to assume too much what happen with the race, the character that survives, how the dead ones died....

and Joker somehow respond fast enough escaping the blast travel faster than light from fight the reaper right beside the crucible.....Blue/green destroys ships? Really? Reapers are ships too~

yah, definitely need a rewrite

[Mev186]

But with DLC Bioware can have it's cake and eat it too. They can keep their ending, But, have a DLC that we pay for to get an ending WE want, based on our choices. We get a better ending; Bioware/EA gets more money, Everybody wins. With the Status Quo, Bioware alienates it's fanbase and jeopardizes it's credibility which made it what it is today.

[TcomJ]

Bluebeam controls mechanic reapers while destroying Joker ships. So I cant assume that all my fleets died from the blast and almost kill Joker. All Reapers are saved.... Hooray!!!!

[TcomJ]

...And Joker ran away and abandon Sheperd like a wuss all of the sudden in the end of the trilogy. That alone is already unlike him. Is the author for ME3 the same as ME1 &2? I'm curious.