254 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Sorry go back reread my first post of which I responded to you as I was editing it which answers your later question at same time.

I would submit this to you, then:

Mass Effect, the original game, is an example of the developers creating a piece of art that they hope will catch the attention of the gaming public. It sets up the IP and the framework they can build on. I'll buy that.

However, in Mass Effect 3, BioWare told us that ME3 was co-created with the fans, and they have stated publicly on numerous occasions that they created it with the fans in mind. This means that it was not solely their direction anymore...it might not have been that they were creating it exactly as we wanted it, but they were trying very hard to make certain things happen based on our feedback. One of those items was "make our previous choices matter." BioWare said, "Okay, fans. Your previous choices will matter." Another item was, "we don't want to be bottlenecked like we were in ME2." BioWare said, "Don't worry fans, the story can now diverge into wildly different conclusions because we're no longer constrained by trying to weave plot threads through one story framework." (I'm paraphrasing here, bear with me.)

So, the fact that BioWare didn't hold up their end of the bargain in that regard isn't troubling at all? A developer that claimed to be taking fan concerns to heart and working with them to create their story...a developer that told us we wouldn't get A, B, and C endings, but gave them to us anyway? 

I respect an artist's creative vision. I really do. What I have a problem with here is that the developers promised us one thing, and gave us another. They promised closure and no unanswered questions, and decided - deliberately, if you've seen the "ME3 Final Hours" app - to keep us guessing. They promised us "wildly divergent endings" and we got three very similar endings with slight variations between them. 

I am a writer. If I write a piece for someone and I tell them I'm going to do one thing, but fail to do it, I fully expect them to come back to me and say, "Hey, this isn't the way you said it would be. I liked the sound of what you said you were gonna do, can you please do that?" I'd only be happy to oblige.

Plus, the minute you start selling sequels to anything - be it books, movies, more episodes of TV shows - you already have an invested fan base. They're  your bread and butter, and it's probably good business sense to keep them happy. Many fan campaigns have yielded a spectrum of results: Firefly (result, Serenity), Farscape (result, finale), Magnum PI, several books have had re-written endings (can't think of the examples off the top of my head, but they're floating around). It's happened before, it can happen again.

I do agree with you that there are people who are taking this too far. (The guy who took this to the US FTC is just...silly, in my opinion.) But by no means are we doing any of this in vain. 

Co-created is fan service statement, meaning took on board some of your feedback and your input and does not mean you actually get to dictate the direction of the story. They only took on board what they felt improved their story they wished to tell. Some elements they gained your perspective on as a fan base but they made the choice to either use or ignore in the telling of their story. It has never left their hands the story they wished to tell and how they wished to tell it. A fan base just means more likely to buy your product if your next one is in line with the previous or they (fans) appreciate the quality of the stories they (developer)  wish to create. Where it is commission art, the customer dictates the form and design, this is not the case with games. With games they will always make what it is they wished to make but they will listen to your suggestions and choose any they feel is inline with what they want to do and express but you don't get to choose which they take or which they do not use in the product they want to make.

Like I said games are closer to art form of paintings and sculptures that represent the artists impression and desires than an office based commission piece which is designed to customer specifications. 

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 mars 2012 - 12:55 .

[CDRSkyShepard]

Still doesn't change the fact they told us they'd do one thing, and did another. Or the fact they said they wouldn't do something, but did it anyway.

I don't know what they honestly expected. You don't say, "Oh yeah, this will give you closure" then release Mac Walters' notes with "Lots of speculation for everyone!!!" written on them in all caps. As a creative person myself, that just seems like a complete cop-out. I'm not trying to berate anyone, but that's the way it looks to me in plain, honest talk. You are probably of a different opinion, and that's fine.

What we want is the option to have an ending that a) makes sense and is satisfying and gives us closure, which is what we were promised in the first place. I'll go against my own argument that the Mass Effect franchise is unique in gaming by being more of a commission than other games and agree with you for the sake of argument for a minute. I'm not going to purchase a painting of a tiger if its proportions don't look right, no matter if that was the artist's intent or not. This artist could even be my friend and have told me, "Oh hey, I'm gonna make a tiger painting, you like tigers, you're gonna love it!" I would be a bit disappointed in this case, and I'll probably go look for a tiger painting I like better. Sadly, I don't have that kind of flexibility with games, because it's not like I'm gonna find something like Mass Effect, only with a better ending. It's just not going to happen. So, my best shot is to see if BioWare will give us additional endings...ones that make more sense, at least.

Also, artistic license is one thing. Logic is another. When telling a story, the two should combine. In this case, they just don't. If I have to fill in the gaps myself, something is wrong. Not saying that means you can't like the endings...just saying I can't like the endings just because they make no sense. There are other problems, in my opinion, but that particular point is a huge sticking point with me.

[Dragoonlordz]

There will always be a compromise between what story you want to see and the story they want to tell and when the two conflict, what they want to tell takes precedence. Choices in a game for a gamer is a blessing but for a developer it's a curse as in the end more often than not it shoots them in the foot somewhere down the line.

[CRISIS1717]

@OP NO

I'm going to contest bad business practices and bad script writing. Thanks for confirming there are people out there who think Bioware is their buddy though.



This is you in the middle, your wish is that you have good games in future, on the left is EA and on the right is Bioware who wish they just had your wallet Dorothy.

Modifié par CRISIS1717, 18 mars 2012 - 09:40 .

[Sinkales]

This thread has delved more of a self-defense Thread…rather than a plea for those Minorities to be civil.

Why don’t we just ignore this tread instead of trying to prove OP’s Point otherwise and vice versa. The same arguments and counterarguments had been mentioned again and again, but both sides won’t budge, so what with the point of continuing this tread?

The extended Life span of these sorts of threads will only inflame both sides.