183 réponses à ce sujet

[Linus108]

I think people are comparing completely different things.

You are talking about non-interactive media vs interactive media. Talking about story/film structure that is 100% the creators without your input, vs a medium that not only asks for your input, but asks you to participate and shape the story yourself.

That is why the Videogame medium (and the RPG genre) is so special and amazing. But even with non-interactive media, I do think the Consumer has the right to no longer purchase future products from a creator if they didn't like it. Absolutely. 

Modifié par Linus108, 13 mars 2012 - 04:05 .

[zambingo]

InvincibleHero wrote...

What are gamers entitled to?

Gamers/Consumers are entitled to a bug free as foresightedly possible and complete game.

That's it.

Enjoyment of a product, value for the price is wholely subjective and impossible to manage.

Mass Effect, like every series, has it's story faults because of our own imaginations forcing "Could Be/Would Be" on it during the downtime between episodes. With that said, I still find Mass Effect to be satisfying. And perhaps most importantly to BioWare and EA... I WANT MORE! I still want to play in that universe.

Modifié par zambingo, 13 mars 2012 - 04:02 .

[Vasarkian]

Gamers are entitled to a game where your decisions made through the time spent in the game are taken into account and not just ignored.

Assets were the primary focus for 27+ hours of this game and in the end they mattered in no capacity for any thing including earlier planets, homeworlds, or galactic battles. Further, they don't matter in the final mission or the ending.

We were lied to about choice and we were lied to about our actions mattering and we were lied to from a direct quote from the directors and developers about what we would be getting.

---

Because our decisions didn't matter, because our actions didn't matter, and because the assets didn't matter, this game is rendered INCOMPLETE.

Because we are so entitled to a complete and functioning game, this game is NOT complete and therefore NOT properly obliging logical expectations.

Modifié par Vasarkian, 13 mars 2012 - 04:02 .

[InvincibleHero]

Farbautisonn wrote...

We are entitled to what a producer of a product promises us. Nothing more and nothing less. And we can then choose to try to enter a dialgoue with the producer if we feel the product does not live up to our expectations. If the producer disagrees with us, we have a choise to stop buying the product. If the producer agrees with us, it would be natural to assume that changes would be made or perhaps even some reimbursement be set forth. If the producer ignores us, then we have little choise but to ignore him back.

I agree with your stance as it applies to physical products. Broken is broken objectively. Game makers have a right to their choice of story and dialog and direction etc etc. If you don't like how ME 3 went then by all means give a jaundiced eye to their next offerings. However, there is no correlation to whether or not you will like their next game unless they make it in a similar style with similar gameplay. A tv with bad pixels will leave you with many options to choose a new manufacturer. You may however like the next BW game. Quality of IP products is user subjective.

[Vasarkian]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

We are entitled to what a producer of a product promises us. Nothing more and nothing less. And we can then choose to try to enter a dialgoue with the producer if we feel the product does not live up to our expectations. If the producer disagrees with us, we have a choise to stop buying the product. If the producer agrees with us, it would be natural to assume that changes would be made or perhaps even some reimbursement be set forth. If the producer ignores us, then we have little choise but to ignore him back.

I agree with your stance as it applies to physical products. Broken is broken objectively. Game makers have a right to their choice of story and dialog and direction etc etc. If you don't like how ME 3 went then by all means give a jaundiced eye to their next offerings. However, there is no correlation to whether or not you will like their next game unless they make it in a similar style with similar gameplay. A tv with bad pixels will leave you with many options to choose a new manufacturer. You may however like the next BW game. Quality of IP products is user subjective.

Because assets were the primary focus but didn't matter at any actual point, the game is rendered incomplete, because it is incomplete the game is not complete yet we were sold it regardless. This is illegal.

[Linus108]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

We are entitled to what a producer of a product promises us. Nothing more and nothing less. And we can then choose to try to enter a dialgoue with the producer if we feel the product does not live up to our expectations. If the producer disagrees with us, we have a choise to stop buying the product. If the producer agrees with us, it would be natural to assume that changes would be made or perhaps even some reimbursement be set forth. If the producer ignores us, then we have little choise but to ignore him back.

I agree with your stance as it applies to physical products. Broken is broken objectively. Game makers have a right to their choice of story and dialog and direction etc etc. If you don't like how ME 3 went then by all means give a jaundiced eye to their next offerings. However, there is no correlation to whether or not you will like their next game unless they make it in a similar style with similar gameplay. A tv with bad pixels will leave you with many options to choose a new manufacturer. You may however like the next BW game. Quality of IP products is user subjective.

It is subjective. But it's based on that subjective opinion whether you decide to continue to spend your money on future products from that company.

I don't understand why you are getting so up in arms over it. Going by your logic, subjectively a lot of people thought this game had an awful/non-ending. And based on their subjective opinion, will not be buying DLC or future product from this company.

There is nothing wrong with that. 

[KorPhaeron]

Linus108 wrote...

I think people are comparing completely different things.

You are talking about non-interactive media vs interactive media. Talking about story/film structure that is 100% the creators without your input, vs a medium that not only asks for your input, but asks you to participate and shape the story yourself.

That is why the Videogame medium (and the RPG genere) is so special and amazing.

This whole discusion is pointless, because unless you live in N. Korea you are entitled to whatever you want, some of these people are using the word as some shame filled thing. But the truth is you are entitled to say or do anything you want, there are consequences to doing illegal things ( if you are caught) but that doesnt mean you arent "entitled" to do them.

[InvincibleHero]

AnttiV wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

We are entitled to what a producer of a product promises us. Nothing more and nothing less. ....

Well, exactly. But what if the producer of said content promises things and those things do NOT end up in the final product (as is the case with ME3). I think we then DO actually have some say about it. Definitely NOT enough to demand anything for free, or even for them to remake half of the product. But I say we have enough say to actually demand that the promised features be added to the product, even if we have to pay a small price for it. (I'm okay with this, because we NEVER agreed to a price, they could say the final product is worth $100 and the $40-$90 people have paid is only part of the price. That would be dumb beyond measure, but that is really in their power.)

I highly doubt there will be a paid DLC for new endings for several reasons. 1. It will invalidate the old choices as if the BW writers are incapable of doing their job. 2. Sets fan demand precedent that renders creative direction moot. If they cave then any and all things are fair game. 3. Sets up future you made a stinky ending so you could charge me $10 for good ending gripes. They do not want that ever.

Modifié par InvincibleHero, 13 mars 2012 - 04:08 .

[Vasarkian]

InvincibleHero wrote...

AnttiV wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

We are entitled to what a producer of a product promises us. Nothing more and nothing less. ....

Well, exactly. But what if the producer of said content promises things and those things do NOT end up in the final product (as is the case with ME3). I think we then DO actually have some say about it. Definitely NOT enough to demand anything for free, or even for them to remake half of the product. But I say we have enough say to actually demand that the promised features be added to the product, even if we have to pay a small price for it. (I'm okay with this, because we NEVER agreed to a price, they could say the final product is worth $100 and the $40-$90 people have paid is only part of the price. That would be dumb beyond measure, but that is really in their power.)

I highly doubt there will be a paid DLC for new endings for several reasons. 1. It will invalidate the old choices as if the BW writers are incapable of doing their job. 2. Sets fan demand precedent that renders creative direction moot. If they cave then any and all things are fair game. 3. Sets up future you made a stinky ending so you could charge me $10 for good ending gripes. They do not want that ever.

IT IS ILLEGAL TO RELEASE AND PRESENT AN INCOMPLETE PRODUCT AS A COMPLETE PRODUCT.

We were lied to, very clearly and can provide quotes from the lead producers and writers.

We were lied to about what would matter and spent hours upon hours building up assets that were ultimately ignored in the end, and because of this, we were given a horrible ending that isn't even an ending.

The game is incomplete, it is ILLEGAL to sell this product as complete.

[Linus108]

KorPhaeron wrote...

Linus108 wrote...

I think people are comparing completely different things.

You are talking about non-interactive media vs interactive media. Talking about story/film structure that is 100% the creators without your input, vs a medium that not only asks for your input, but asks you to participate and shape the story yourself.

That is why the Videogame medium (and the RPG genere) is so special and amazing.

This whole discusion is pointless, because unless you live in N. Korea you are entitled to whatever you want, some of these people are using the word as some shame filled thing. But the truth is you are entitled to say or do anything you want, there are consequences to doing illegal things ( if you are caught) but that doesnt mean you arent "entitled" to do them.

I just think "entitled" goes both ways. 

Like I said, companies aren't entitled to our money in the future. Anyone saying that their only job is to provide a product and move on, doesn't understand what it means to build a company and reputation with their customers. 

There are some directors in Hollywood that have let down fans over and over, with really poor products. And now they barely get any funding. Why? Because fans stopped buying their product. You could argue that it's unfair for fans to stop paying for his product, because who's to say his next movie won't be excellent? But if fans no longer trust that creator....

Is it that unreasonable for fans of Mass Effect to say they didn't like how they handled the end, therefore they don't want to spend any more money on DLC or future products regarding this franchise? I don't think it is. Of course everyone has their own purchasing habits, and how they decide to spend their money. To each his/her own.

Modifié par Linus108, 13 mars 2012 - 04:15 .

[zambingo]

Vasarkian wrote...

Because our decisions didn't matter, because our actions didn't matter, and because the assets didn't matter, this game is rendered INCOMPLETE.

I'm sorry, but hey... that's life.

We can make all the plans we want, or not, but no matter what life stampedes on. Sometimes what we've done helps us, pushes forward, other times we get blindsided at an intersection and it's all over. We could spend our lives becoming the best driver on the planet and still get taken out by a T-Bone. Journey vs Destination etc.

Dragon Age 2 suffered from the same critique. Nothing we did really seemed to matter. Again... sometimes that's life. Heck, MOST TIMES that is life. The important thing is how you conducted yourself thru that point.

[kbct]

InvincibleHero wrote...

AnttiV wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

We are entitled to what a producer of a product promises us. Nothing more and nothing less. ....

Well, exactly. But what if the producer of said content promises things and those things do NOT end up in the final product (as is the case with ME3). I think we then DO actually have some say about it. Definitely NOT enough to demand anything for free, or even for them to remake half of the product. But I say we have enough say to actually demand that the promised features be added to the product, even if we have to pay a small price for it. (I'm okay with this, because we NEVER agreed to a price, they could say the final product is worth $100 and the $40-$90 people have paid is only part of the price. That would be dumb beyond measure, but that is really in their power.)

I highly doubt there will be a paid DLC for new endings for several reasons. 1. It will invalidate the old choices as if the BW writers are incapable of doing their job. 2. Sets fan demand precedent that renders creative direction moot. If they cave then any and all things are fair game. 3. Sets up future you made a stinky ending so you could charge me $10 for good ending gripes. They do not want that ever.

Bethesda did it with success.

[InvincibleHero]

Vasarkian wrote...

Because assets were the primary focus but didn't matter at any actual point, the game is rendered incomplete, because it is incomplete the game is not complete yet we were sold it regardless. This is illegal.

Your stance is a little extreme. The game works has gameplay throughout and an obvious start and finish. You said you played through to finish. How is that not a complete game? You may disagree with waht you had to do but how is that any different than shooting through waves of bad guys to choose a dialog ending at the end of the game? You were fighting the repaers throughout and loking for a resolution to the problem. Buidling up your fighting response seemed to be what you needed to do and a good idea. Then a new situation presents itself that is maybe better than having at it with maybe the reapers winning. You don't know the outcome after all. Ending the the cycle with 100% certainty was no gamble and right call even if forced into it.

[Vasarkian]

zambingo wrote...

Vasarkian wrote...

Because our decisions didn't matter, because our actions didn't matter, and because the assets didn't matter, this game is rendered INCOMPLETE.

I'm sorry, but hey... that's life.

We can make all the plans we want, or not, but no matter what life stampedes on. Sometimes what we've done helps us, pushes forward, other times we get blindsided at an intersection and it's all over. We could spend our lives becoming the best driver on the planet and still get taken out by a T-Bone. Journey vs Destination etc.

Dragon Age 2 suffered from the same critique. Nothing we did really seemed to matter. Again... sometimes that's life. Heck, MOST TIMES that is life. The important thing is how you conducted yourself thru that point.

DA2 had so many issues it should have been taken as a sign of things to come. But no a huge fleet beyond huge of all the races teaming up and aligned could very capably take the Reaper fleet guarding Earth based on everything we've learned in the codex and games and the planet entries, especially past encounters with the Reapers throughout ME3.

It is illegal to sell any product as complete if it is actually incomplete.

We were told very clearly with very quotable sources that this game would be complete, that it would take into account our decisions and that we would be building assets to save Earth.

Well none of those assets mattered.

I don't think they realize that anyone who actually looked into the law and tried to sue them would win.

[Gtacatalina]

Good article from Forbes about Mass Effect 3 and gamer entitlements.

http://www.forbes.co...er-entitlement/

Modifié par Gtacatalina, 13 mars 2012 - 04:16 .

[Vasarkian]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Vasarkian wrote...

Because assets were the primary focus but didn't matter at any actual point, the game is rendered incomplete, because it is incomplete the game is not complete yet we were sold it regardless. This is illegal.

Your stance is a little extreme. The game works has gameplay throughout and an obvious start and finish. You said you played through to finish. How is that not a complete game? You may disagree with waht you had to do but how is that any different than shooting through waves of bad guys to choose a dialog ending at the end of the game? You were fighting the repaers throughout and loking for a resolution to the problem. Buidling up your fighting response seemed to be what you needed to do and a good idea. Then a new situation presents itself that is maybe better than having at it with maybe the reapers winning. You don't know the outcome after all. Ending the the cycle with 100% certainty was no gamble and right call even if forced into it.

Because the game's complete form is based off of what the developers, lead producers, and writers told us and can be quoted from numerous sources as it has been, and that our decisions would matter (factor one of a product), that our choices would be taken into account (factor two of a product), and that we would be building up assets that had inherent value and mattered in regards to taking Earth back (factor three of a product), and these factors were not realized in our final product, then the game is rendered incomplete.

Because it is incomplete, not regarded as incomplete, and was sold as completed, this is an illegal act that has been taken very seriously in court whenever it occurs, generally with larger products.

If you received a vacuum cleaner that was missing a key pump that you only installed at the end of putting it together and you realized this pump didn't even exist in actuality for anyone who bought the vacuum, you were sold an illegal product.

This product is illegal because they made those statements.

[The Big Nothing]

The product that was advertised: a game where the decisions of the past two games have heavy and unique consequences.

We're not entitled to a better ending that makes sense, but I hope we get one. If you do too, then vote here:

http://social.biowar...29/polls/29279/

[Il Divo]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Asking for a correction (no matter how nicely done) to a work of art is akin to demanding it. You have no right of ownership of the IP. You are saying I disagree with you who created ME or whatever work of art. If and when someon makes something so nonsensical you'd have a point. Most writers try to keep lore and consistency through a series. It isn't always possible to adhere to it 100%. Marvel Comics in the 80s were much better because they enforced continuity IMO. Not that I haven't read great stories since, but as a whole they made more sense.

I have no ownership over the IP, otherwise the endings given would have never seen the light of day. I do however have ownership over my own voice and my wallet, which I can use to express that dissatisfaction in whatever means I choose, be it this charity organization, a terrible review, amongst others.

I'm not certain why you are so intent on defending the company's artistic right to his product, but not the consumer's right to oppose it. The very idea behind the free market is built on the interactions between the two. Company is entitled to establish terms of sale, consumer is entitled to express desire for a certain kind of product, in addition to refusing to purchase other products from that company.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 mars 2012 - 04:21 .

[kbct]

Gtacatalina wrote...


Good article from Forbes about Mass Effect 3 and gamer entitlements.

http://www.forbes.co...er-entitlement/

Thanks. Forbes has been supportive in several articles now.

"The gaming industry, and gaming media, is wrong to label upset consumers as ‘entitled’ or ignore the investment of fans beyond simply spending their hard-earned cash."

[AnttiV]

InvincibleHero wrote...

I highly doubt there will be a paid DLC for new endings for several reasons. 1. It will invalidate the old choices as if the BW writers are incapable of doing their job. 2. Sets fan demand precedent that renders creative direction moot. If they cave then any and all things are fair game. 3. Sets up future you made a stinky ending so you could charge me $10 for good ending gripes. They do not want that ever.

1. No it won't. For the nth time in this, we do not ask the *change* the endings, no. For all I care leave those in. They could go many ways with it, either "continue" the endings from where they left (the hallucination/indoctrination theory) or just make paraller, different endings. That wouldn't invalidate anything, it is just simply catering to fans (and maybe making profit on the side).

2. 
In short: no. And Bethesda even did this to FO3 with Broken Steel and it made the game all the better for it and made sales figures rise. And movies do this even multiple times per production with test audiences. Even SONGS gets changed according to outside criticism. 

3. Expanding game/endings is the whole point of DLCs, so I don't this would set any precedent for the future. You can say the exact same things about ME2 (except that ME2-proper ending didn't suck). What is "The Arrival", if not expanding the ending of the game with more content that you pay for? Because that is almost exactly what most of the people are asking for. Something MORE (not deleting anything that is already in the game, although, well, that's spoilerific, so another forum. I just detest Deus Ex Machina.) that we're ready to pay for.

[Vasarkian]

This product is illegal.

[InvincibleHero]

kbct wrote...

We're entitled to nothing. BioWare doesn't have to do a single thing for us.

However, there is nothing wrong with people expressing their dissatisfaction and trying to affect change.

I see nothing wrong with what you stated. I would however say it depends what you want to change. Broken gameplay= ok. Changing the writing to suit personal taste is not because everyone wants something different. It may make them more mindful in future games that many people hate downer endings, but beyond saying your piece and letting it go which is the mature response people are harping on it as if they can and will make BW do what they want. I hope that fails for integrity of IP (no matter who) holder's sake.

[kbct]

Il Divo wrote...

I have no ownership over the IP, otherwise the endings given would have never seen the light of day. I do however have ownership over my own voice and my wallet, which I can use to express that dissatisfaction in whatever means I choose, be it this charity organization, a terrible review, amongst others.

I'm not certain why you are so intent on defending the company's artistic right to his product, but not the consumer's right to oppose it. The very idea behind the free market is built on the interactions between the two. Company is entitled to establish terms of sale, consumer is entitled to express desire for a certain kind of product, in addition to refusing to purchase other products from that company.

Well said.

[Cell1e]

Where is the delete button?

Modifié par Cell1e, 13 mars 2012 - 04:30 .

[Cell1e]

InvincibleHero wrote...

That is a fine question but people are taking their inch and trying to stretch it for a mile. BW has always controlled the story and Shepard. They created and breathed life into the character and franchise. It is their right to end things how they want. Gamers do not have a right to write the games and make character changes. If BW caves it will be a blow against any artistic integrity of any media producing company ever. You cannot let the people dictate changes to an already finished IP. Do you get to write your own endings to movies or Tv shows or even change the characters given? Nope. You can have an opinion on disliking the endings and that's fine , but to demand changes and holler and kick a tantrum to get your way is not very mature or sensible. Does BW dictate how you do things in your daily life do they tell you how to do your job at work? No way. You have no right to dictate theirs.

I cannot understand the hate people going it was great until the final ten minutes so this game is trash? So your last bite of lasagna wasn't as piping hot and maybe a little watery from sitting does that make the meal less satisfying? Are you going to never touch lasagne again? Of course not. People are going wild with drama and entitlement mentality. They delivered on most accounts a very fine game which is the job we expect companies to do.

Your job is to buy it or not period. If you don't like it fine as all products have the caveat they aren't for everyone. They owe you nothing and they could have ended the series at ME2 if they wanted. Do you want to be so demanding a fan base BW would gladly ditch you? I think it has reached that point. I would not blame them if they turned a deaf ear to fan demands now. They listened and gave things all these years yet that only increased your appetite for more and bolder demands. You are not armchair game designers no matter how much you want to be. Your job is product consumer period. If you don't play the game again that is your loss from self-inflicted wounds.


Fair game is bugs and poor quality of things like graphics , and gameplay and even story critique. Demanding an ending patch is so over the top spoiled-rotten territory. It is fine to give feedback and likes and dislikes but keep a proper perspective. You are demanding what you want and do not care what BW the actual owner/creator desires. That is egotistical by any measure.


I personally would have preferred some other possible endings being available, but I will be cool with their decision to end their franchise , character, and IP how they choose. I intend to buy it when I have the means to do so. The author has all the rights of creation and that is the natural order of things. Yes I have read in detail the endings so I know what is in store for my playthroughs. Still doesn't dent my desire to play ME 3 in the least.


I empathize not liking something, but once you make your distaste known then that should be the end of it. I've played many good games with bad endings, but I put it in perspective that is a small part of the game. If I enjoyed it up until then then it was a great game and if it had replayability then I would play it again. You have to ask the opposite if you got the ending you wanted and the rest of the game was bad would that elevate the game to game of the year? Ummm no obviously. So fan demands are based on the premise that over inflates the importance of the ending. You didn't get what you wanted so deal with it like any other disappointment that you have no control over. Move on and let the anger and hate go. You only punish yourself for harboring such negative emotions beyond a reasonable time.


ME 3 was a product of many hours of work by many dedicated people and we shouldn't lose sight of that. They are fellow humans with feelings like anyone and to see people trash their hard work because you didn't get what you wanted is a head hanging moment. They should be proud of their work. Have you been praising what you liked or spending more time trashing the small part of the game you didn't?

I don't agree.

Anyone who makes a product and claims to listen and care about its customers as Bioware 'claims' to do, should of course do everything they can to appease the vast majority of their customers. It is in their own best interests after all; they are a business, they are not selling art, they are selling a product which they can and often do adjust to suit their market.

In my opinion Bioware should make all haste to make the appropriate changes and charge their customers for the privilege.