2054 réponses à ce sujet

[AdrynBliss]

Bit of a doomsayer post here i'm afraid.

I think this could potentially start a painful decent for bioware.
Given that the format is completely subjective by its very nature, the next dlc or next game will be disliked by some, that's fact.
If changes can be made on this scale after release, at god knows what kind of expense, purely because of the will of the angry mob, what's to stop it happening again and again and again?

It's completely unfeasible to do this every time the audience doesn't like what it's seeing but that is what people will expect to happen once it's been done once.

One of two things would have to happen;
1: In future developments the budget accounts for possible changes after release, this in turn will drive the price of games up.

2: Should these additional expenses be incurred once investors/shareholders/ whoever holds the purse strings may not be willing to risk it happening again (which, again, is ENTIRELY possible if it happens once) and we bid goodnight to that development house.


Well people got what they wanted. I just hope they're prepared to accept the consequences.

[Yalpsid Eman]

While there are so, so many folks, and I know I'm just a little voice in a big sea, I wanted to provide my feedback. I felt betrayed with Dragon Age 2. I thought so highly of Bioware with DA:O and ME1 and 2. DA:2 was ice cold water in the face. I told myself, never pre-order again, never order based on the reviews, wait to hear the fans. I have heard the fans and I'm glad I didn't buy yet. I'm eagerly waiting to hear what Bioware chooses to do.

Modifié par Yalpsid Eman, 23 mars 2012 - 11:41 .

[Incendax]

silentassassin264 wrote...
The endings made sense, at least to me.  My question was why was is considered lorebreaking?

From ME1 to ME3 Shepard always has the option of taking diverse people and uniting them despite their differences. Shepard did not have the option to argue in favor of this with the Catalyst.

Established lore says a destroyed mass relay blows up like a super-nova, so either everyone on earth and the entire galaxy fleet is dead or the explosion was special and we are given no indication of this fact.

Joker is not a coward, and he would not be running from the most important battle in human history.

The selling point of the game is that you are going to Take Back Earth. You never know if you take back earth.

[Jebediah Springfield]

No, it's Take Earth Back, and you do take it back. To the stone age. Actually the entire universe goes before the Stone Age. It's great. Love it. Just think of Joker with the monkeys at the start of 2001 A Space Odyssey.

[medusa_hair]

It's been done before...Bethesda did it for Fallout 3 with the Broken Steel DLC.  You were dead, then you magically woke up!   Medicine in the future sure is amazing!

My point is, it isn't necessarily blazing a new trail.  The outcry is just bigger this time, because the game is bigger and there is much more in the way of interpersonal relationships (platonic and otherwise) that capture people's feelings.  And I'm not all that concerned about future games.  ME3 is the one that needs fixing.  The ruckus could result in game writers being more careful when they write their endings, to make sure they fit in logically the way they should, since this ending does not and that is the main problem with it.

[silentassassin264]

Incendax wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...
The endings made sense, at least to me.  My question was why was is considered lorebreaking?

From ME1 to ME3 Shepard always has the option of taking diverse people and uniting them despite their differences. Shepard did not have the option to argue in favor of this with the Catalyst.

Established lore says a destroyed mass relay blows up like a super-nova, so either everyone on earth and the entire galaxy fleet is dead or the explosion was special and we are given no indication of this fact.

Joker is not a coward, and he would not be running from the most important battle in human history.

The selling point of the game is that you are going to Take Back Earth. You never know if you take back earth.

It was glowing weird colors from a specialized pulse from the Citadel.  Of course it was a specialized explosion.  

And as far as arguing with the Catalyst, the Crucible was in the middle of a warzone.  You don't have time to talk philosophy when you are A) mortally wounded and have to do something quick or your distraction fleet gets vaporized.  

Modifié par silentassassin264, 23 mars 2012 - 11:54 .

[spacehamsterZH]

Incendax wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...
The endings made sense, at least to me.  My question was why was is considered lorebreaking?

Established lore says a destroyed mass relay blows up like a super-nova, so either everyone on earth and the entire galaxy fleet is dead or the explosion was special and we are given no indication of this fact.

Joker is not a coward, and he would not be running from the most important battle in human history.

Those are just two out of a bajillion reasons. My favorite is this: Sovereign says in ME1 that the Reapers built the mass relays so that civilization would develop the way they wanted it to. The "Starchild" or whatever we're calling him now says the Reapers' extinction cycle is necessary because civilization always descends into chaos, i.e. it all DOESN'T EVER go the way it's supposed to. This makes zero sense.

There are plenty of other reasons, take your pick. This one's just the one that bugs me the most.

[AdrynBliss]

medusa_hair wrote...
The ruckus could result in game writers being more careful when they write their endings, to make sure they fit in logically the way they should, since this ending does not and that is the main problem with it.

That result is a rocky path in itself.
On the one hand more attention is payed to every little detail of future projects resulting in far more immersive experiences and potentionally greater gaming experiences overall but with longer development times

or it could result in the narratives being simplified to ensure, beyound a doubt, there will be no confusion and as such we recieve a 'dumded down' narritive with no real substance.

Modifié par AdrynBliss, 24 mars 2012 - 12:01 .

[Johanna]

AdrynBliss wrote...

It's completely unfeasible to do this every time the audience doesn't like what it's seeing but that is what people will expect to happen once it's been done once.

As has been mentioned before, it's already been done, and more than once.

I am not part of an angry mob.  We are not an angry mob.  An angry mob does not eagerly offer up page after page of ideas and thoughtful criticism, nor does an angry mob donate ~$80k to charity in the name of drawing attention to this issue.

[spacehamsterZH]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Those are just two out of a bajillion reasons. My favorite is this: Sovereign says in ME1 that the Reapers built the mass relays so that civilization would develop the way they wanted it to. The "Starchild" or whatever we're calling him now says the Reapers' extinction cycle is necessary because civilization always descends into chaos, i.e. it all DOESN'T EVER go the way it's supposed to. This makes zero sense.

.........

I've just made myself realize that next time I play ME1 and I talk to Sovereign, it will no longer be the badassest badguy moment in videogame history, and instead I'll just cringe.

[AdrynBliss]

Da Vinci dude, I don't like her smile, I mean yeah sure she's smiling but it's not the smile I was expecting, no I don't give a crap if you've got plans this evening or how much more paint is going to cost you I want you to change it now.

[pf17456]

For me the jury is still out on bioware. It'll depend on what happens next month when hopefully the Devs add content clarifying the ending as a dream or vision Shepard has after being blasted into the rubble by Harbinger and then maybe we can end the Shepard story arc in a better way with more options ranging from bad to good. If something along these lines doesn't happen I'll be inclined to pass on Bioware games in the future because after 6 years of anticipating something epic the current endings just left me disappointed on several levels.

[Jayce]

silentassassin264 wrote...
The endings made sense, at least to me.  My question was why was is considered lorebreaking?

Shepards primary motivations from the start of the assault on Eden Prime till the encouter with the Catalyst are to stop Saren, stop The Illusive Man and stop The Reapers.

A precis of all three options you're given by the Catalyst to deal with this would be:

Do what Saren wanted all along.
Do what the Illusive Man wanted all along
Take the Reapers out via Mutually Assured Destruction.

All three choices ultimately kill any player motivation on replay. Why bother stopping Saren, the Illusive Man or The Reapers if you're only going to do what they would've done anyway?

Where's the Shepard who shouted "We fight or we die!"?

All three choices fly directly in the face of Shepard's motivations up to that point. What makes it worse is, the Catalyst justifies those three options with flawed logic: Shepard, despite having overwhelming empirical evidence and simple logic on his side, simply accepts what the Catalyst tells him.  

It's a massive betrayal of the character and infuriating for the player. It's why so many embrace the Indoctrination Theory, because that's the only way what Shepard does makes any sense.

Then we get to the problems with the cutscene(s): First of all the relays explode, thats going to cause every system with an exploding relay to be obliterated, the lore is quite firm on this.

Even if you accept the relays don't supernova. You've still stranded the survivors of the battle in the Local Cluster. But by accepting that you create another plothole: If the relays didn't supernova, why the hell was the Normandy going hell for leather trying to outrun the blast wave? Why did it damage the Normandy so badly the ship crashlanded?

To accept the ending as is, you have to turn a blind eye to an eyewatering number of contradictions. Normally people can forgive the odd plot hole but here they are too many and too blantant.

Modifié par Jayce F, 24 mars 2012 - 12:40 .

[d.nichols]

AdrynBliss wrote...

Da Vinci dude, I don't like her smile, I mean yeah sure she's smiling but it's not the smile I was expecting, no I don't give a crap if you've got plans this evening or how much more paint is going to cost you I want you to change it now.

This argument! I love this argument and how much pretentious sense it pretends to make. First off, the Mona Lisa wasn't made for commercial purposes. If Mass Effect 3 was the same kind of art as the Mona Lisa, there would be one very expensive copy, that everyone else could then observe for free. Obviously that's not what we've got.

Also, no one is anticipating a "twist ending" on the Mona Lisa; you look at it, appreciate (for free) and then move the hell on to the next piece. Mass Effect is something that takes quite a while to appreciate (3 games) and while the Mona Lisa was a master-piece, Mass Effect has its flaws (not saying it isnt good). The ending to Mass Effect is like if someone pencilled in a moustache on the Mona Lisa.

Finally, Don't pretend that it's even on the same scale as Mass Effect 3. The Mona Lisa is timeless. Will there be a significant crowd of people who are playing Mass Effect 3 500 years after its creations. There won't be people playing Mass Effect 3 five years after its creations, so sink this argument using your superiority complex as an anchor.

[orangesonic]

ile_1979 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

hatori1181 wrote...

I really dislike how the retake movement is being diminished. I seriously doubt that we are the minority, and holding up meta-critic is not a valid argument. I'm glad that there is going to be some kind of resolution, but let's be honest, you can't half-bake this one. The world is going to be watching how you handle this, and what you do and how you do it will affect how the world views not only video games as a whole, but the people that create them.

No, it'll just affect how I view a certain game company and their developers as a whole.

Edit: TW2 hits the 360 next month and if it's as good as I've heard the PC players talking about, then Im pretty sure I may be jumping on the CD Projekt Red (Spelling please? lol) bandwagon

TW2 is quite good. It has some replay value (as in chapters can play in entirely different ways) if you are into that sort of thing. Dunno how the controlls would translate to the consoles, but i think the layout is quite console friendly (much to the dismay of the PC crowd). 

yeah... i have it for the PC and it is great

[AdrynBliss]

d.nichols wrote...

AdrynBliss wrote...

Da Vinci dude, I don't like her smile, I mean yeah sure she's smiling but it's not the smile I was expecting, no I don't give a crap if you've got plans this evening or how much more paint is going to cost you I want you to change it now.

This argument! I love this argument and how much pretentious sense it pretends to make. First off, the Mona Lisa wasn't made for commercial purposes. If Mass Effect 3 was the same kind of art as the Mona Lisa, there would be one very expensive copy, that everyone else could then observe for free. Obviously that's not what we've got.

Also, no one is anticipating a "twist ending" on the Mona Lisa; you look at it, appreciate (for free) and then move the hell on to the next piece. Mass Effect is something that takes quite a while to appreciate (3 games) and while the Mona Lisa was a master-piece, Mass Effect has its flaws (not saying it isnt good). The ending to Mass Effect is like if someone pencilled in a moustache on the Mona Lisa.

Finally, Don't pretend that it's even on the same scale as Mass Effect 3. The Mona Lisa is timeless. Will there be a significant crowd of people who are playing Mass Effect 3 500 years after its creations. There won't be people playing Mass Effect 3 five years after its creations, so sink this argument using your superiority complex as an anchor.

Using the mona lisa was just a genralized example, i simply used a well know artist and his creation.

What ever else they are, Video games are a subjective art form, it's perfectly acceptable to like to dislike elements of or all of a game.
What I believe is ethically unacceptable is to force the artist in to changing his artwork, which was subjective to begin with, without regard for his time, money or resources.

[slimgrin]

I just love that pensive look from DR. Ray...so sincere.

https://encrypted-tb...EXv9jLx7BPtEvAg

I hope he gets enough funds for the next poker tournament.

Modifié par slimgrin, 24 mars 2012 - 12:43 .

[orangesonic]

AdrynBliss wrote...

Bit of a doomsayer post here i'm afraid.

I think this could potentially start a painful decent for bioware.
Given that the format is completely subjective by its very nature, the next dlc or next game will be disliked by some, that's fact.
If changes can be made on this scale after release, at god knows what kind of expense, purely because of the will of the angry mob, what's to stop it happening again and again and again?

It's completely unfeasible to do this every time the audience doesn't like what it's seeing but that is what people will expect to happen once it's been done once.

One of two things would have to happen;
1: In future developments the budget accounts for possible changes after release, this in turn will drive the price of games up.

2: Should these additional expenses be incurred once investors/shareholders/ whoever holds the purse strings may not be willing to risk it happening again (which, again, is ENTIRELY possible if it happens once) and we bid goodnight to that development house.


Well people got what they wanted. I just hope they're prepared to accept the consequences.

i agree... now everytime people will complain if they don`t like a Bioware game, even after they said they would do something about it... talking to kids is a waste of time man

[ile_1979]

AdrynBliss wrote...

d.nichols wrote...

AdrynBliss wrote...

Da Vinci dude, I don't like her smile, I mean yeah sure she's smiling but it's not the smile I was expecting, no I don't give a crap if you've got plans this evening or how much more paint is going to cost you I want you to change it now.

This argument! I love this argument and how much pretentious sense it pretends to make. First off, the Mona Lisa wasn't made for commercial purposes. If Mass Effect 3 was the same kind of art as the Mona Lisa, there would be one very expensive copy, that everyone else could then observe for free. Obviously that's not what we've got.

Also, no one is anticipating a "twist ending" on the Mona Lisa; you look at it, appreciate (for free) and then move the hell on to the next piece. Mass Effect is something that takes quite a while to appreciate (3 games) and while the Mona Lisa was a master-piece, Mass Effect has its flaws (not saying it isnt good). The ending to Mass Effect is like if someone pencilled in a moustache on the Mona Lisa.

Finally, Don't pretend that it's even on the same scale as Mass Effect 3. The Mona Lisa is timeless. Will there be a significant crowd of people who are playing Mass Effect 3 500 years after its creations. There won't be people playing Mass Effect 3 five years after its creations, so sink this argument using your superiority complex as an anchor.

Using the mona lisa was just a genralized example, i simply used a well know artist and his creation.

What ever else they are, Video games are a subjective art form, it's perfectly acceptable to like to dislike elements of or all of a game.
What I believe is ethically unacceptable is to force the artist in to changing his artwork, which was subjective to begin with, without regard for his time, money or resources.

Not to mention that got repainted to

[Jayce]

AdrynBliss wrote...

Using the mona lisa was just a genralized example, i simply used a well know artist and his creation.

What ever else they are, Video games are a subjective art form, it's perfectly acceptable to like to dislike elements of or all of a game.
What I believe is ethically unacceptable is to force the artist in to changing his artwork, which was subjective to begin with, without regard for his time, money or resources.

You might want to talk to some actual artists and writers. Many can and do change their pieces base on critques of their work. Even Michelangelo made changes to the Cistine Chapel and few novelists get to see their first draft in print.

[Hospitallar]

I think the main concern with changing is that some feel that it will set a dangerous precedence. Significant amount of the fanbase do not like the ending of a game? Whine long and loud enough and companies will bend to change it to their liking, creativity and integrity going out the window with it.

Personally, that's a concern of mine too. I feel that if all they do is just a simple "epilogue" DLC that adds "And this is what came after the explosions" for five dollars, that will turn a lot of people off. I almost imagine they kind of need to make an expansion adding a few more hours of gameplay that either further fleshes out the end or expands on it.

However, I think it is worth noting that a lot of people have articulated that they were not necessarily looking for a "happy" ending, they felt that the current ending had problems that could easily have been avoided. Given the context, this might be a specific situation issue, not something that could be applied as a general rule.

[Johanna]

AdrynBliss wrote...

What I believe is ethically unacceptable is to force the artist in to changing his artwork, which was subjective to begin with, without regard for his time, money or resources.

Your understanding of art and artists is limited.

If we are to consider Mass Effect 3 a work of art*, and argue for or against it on its artistic merits, we must also understand the truth of art and of being an artist.



* Full disclosure: I do not consider video games to be works of art, though I acknowledge that artists are a part of the team that helps create them.

[ParagonGreg]

I know changing the ending is a dangerous precedent. But I also think it's important to call a company when the marketing is misleading to the point of being deceitful. To just ignore everything Mr. Hudson and company has said and just plant it all behind the "art" shield feels like a major backpedal. You can't tell me it's *my* Shepard right up until the end, then it's *your* Shepard and your artistic vision.

Honestly, this is all talk. We will never see a new ending the Mass Effect 3 the same way we will never see the fixed version of Deception. These are just PR announcements to get the press to point out how Bioware listens and that people who keep giving it bad press and bringing attention to the ending are just whining, since Bioware is already "fixing" the issue.

I wish Kai Leng ate cereal in the game.

[Johanna]

orangesonic wrote...

i agree... now everytime people will complain if they don`t like a Bioware game, even after they said they would do something about it... talking to kids is a waste of time man

Raising complaints about a video game is as old as video games.  This is nothing new.  What is new is the ability to change video games after they have been released, via DLC.

I am willing to bet that the majority of people who are dissatisfied with the ending(s) of ME3 are not "kids."  I am thirty-three, and most certainly not a "kid."  I am an adult with money to spend, and how BioWare resolves this situation will determine whether or not any of my money is spent on their products in the future.