236 réponses à ce sujet

[admcmei]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm confused. I thought people said Bioware paid Gamespot and IGN off. Why would they be against this announcement if they were?

Because they already took this position before to defend BW and would look like complete tools if they immediately changed it in an afternoon. And, to protect all the other companies.
It's not like we need any more proof about those sites, someone already mentioned the incident where a Gamespot guy was fired for a negative review. That completely devoids anything they have to say of any credibility. Ever.
And IGN, well, I'd insult your intelligence if I implied I even had to explain it to you since they were basically a giant ME3 ad for a few days and have one of their staff inside the game.

Modifié par admcmei, 22 mars 2012 - 07:01 .

[BatmanPWNS]

Their opinion.

[Cribbian]

JamSprack wrote...

 I can't believe gamespot is calling someone else spineless. 

My thoughts exactly

[hoorayforicecream]

MDT1 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm confused. I thought people said Bioware paid Gamespot and IGN off. Why would they be against this announcement if they were?

Because other gaming companies pay too and now gamers all over the world could realize that they don't have to accept every **** thats thrown at them and say thank you?

Edit: With all the attention this gets I'm sure developers all over the world are afraid they can't hide bad business practices and lazyness behind their  "artistic integrity" anymore.

Are you saying that some other game company paid Gamespot and IGN to slam Bioware after Bioware paid them to make positive comments about ME3? What company would stand to gain from that?

That makes no sense at all.

[catabuca]

OmegaBlue0231 wrote...

Allow me to add my 2 cents on art and business. I commission people for art regularly (mostly digital). Now if I'm unsatisfied with the finished product and need something changed liked the color of the skin, a small but very important thing. They'll usually change that; sometimes for free, sometimes for a few dollars depending on the work needed.

Does that make it not art? No! It's still art but it's also a product that has been made for a consumer to buy.

Regardless of your position on whether something is art or not (which is a minefield and something I'm not touching with a bargepole - I'm a Bourdieusian, I couldn't do the subject justice in a forum post), it's a little misleading to compare the creation of a product that is then offered for sale with the process of commissioning something. If anyone is in the position of being the commissioning party in this, it's EA, not the people who bought the game. I'm not making comment here on the perceived rights or wrongs of asking, expecting, demanding or suggesting BioWare alter their product after the fact. I'm merely saying that the 'commission' analogy isn't an accurate one in this situation.

[SynheKatze]

So much for 'artistic integrity' when they cut content from the game to sell it as DLC, made horrible decisions in order to appeal for the masses, and released a rushed ending that made no sense with the overall structure of the game and the lore.

Yeah, artistic integrity. Funny.

[MrAtomica]

So what if games are art? Does that then mean that anyone who dislikes the representation of said art is wrong? We aren't talking about some pittance of people, the RetakeME3 movement is a sizable chunk of the vocal portion of the fanbase.

I can hardly accept that we have no right to voice our displeasure with the endings as they are. There are so many holes in logic and utterly bizarre decisions, that any competent writing team would have picked up on them before they became an issue. This is partially why I've come to believe that the endings were created by the lead, without editing. There is simply too much inconsistency for the same team that had a hand in ME1 and ME2 to miss.

Modifié par MrAtomica, 22 mars 2012 - 07:04 .

[PeterBazooka]

The gaming "press" sure has been the most embarrassing part of this entire debacle.

[OmegaBlue0231]

catabuca wrote...

OmegaBlue0231 wrote...

Allow me to add my 2 cents on art and business. I commission people for art regularly (mostly digital). Now if I'm unsatisfied with the finished product and need something changed liked the color of the skin, a small but very important thing. They'll usually change that; sometimes for free, sometimes for a few dollars depending on the work needed.

Does that make it not art? No! It's still art but it's also a product that has been made for a consumer to buy.

Regardless of your position on whether something is art or not (which is a minefield and something I'm not touching with a bargepole - I'm a Bourdieusian, I couldn't do the subject justice in a forum post), it's a little misleading to compare the creation of a product that is then offered for sale with the process of commissioning something. If anyone is in the position of being the commissioning party in this, it's EA, not the people who bought the game. I'm not making comment here on the perceived rights or wrongs of asking, expecting, demanding or suggesting BioWare alter their product after the fact. I'm merely saying that the 'commission' analogy isn't an accurate one in this situation.

I will agree with you that it's not 100% accurate.

Thank you for being civil with your reply.

[hoorayforicecream]

admcmei wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm confused. I thought people said Bioware paid Gamespot and IGN off. Why would they be against this announcement if they were?

Because they already took this position before to defend BW and would look like complete tools if they immediately changed it in an afternoon. And, to protect all the other companies.
It's not like we need any more proof about those sites, someone already mentioned the incident where a Gamespot guy was fired for a negative review. That completely devoids anything they have to say of any credibility. Ever.
And IGN, well, I'd insult your intelligence if I implied I even had to explain it to you since they were basically a giant ME3 ad for a few days and have one of their staff inside the game.

If this is true, then any review put out by any publication, ever, is suspect.

[Random citizen]

There are many ways to "sell out" if you are talking about compromising with artistic or aesthetic vales just to sell more stuff. Its really about sacrificing edge and quality.

Bioware does not need to do that, even if the fix the ending. The only thing they need to do is to align the ending with artistic vision and aesthetics/style present in the rest of the game and series.

And Gamespot have a certain history that makes them seem less suitable preaching about selling out.

[thunderhawk862002]

Gamespot fired a reviewer for giving Kane and Lynch a poor reviews. Nothing new.

[admcmei]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm confused. I thought people said Bioware paid Gamespot and IGN off. Why would they be against this announcement if they were?

Because other gaming companies pay too and now gamers all over the world could realize that they don't have to accept every **** thats thrown at them and say thank you?

Edit: With all the attention this gets I'm sure developers all over the world are afraid they can't hide bad business practices and lazyness behind their "artistic integrity" anymore.

Are you saying that some other game company paid Gamespot and IGN to slam Bioware after Bioware paid them to make positive comments about ME3? What company would stand to gain from that?

That makes no sense at all.

Really? You can't understand that we're talking about a balance inside the industry that goes over x dollars for one review? We're talking about sponsorship, exclusives, previews, things that publishers and developers have the power to give to whoever they want. It's a lot more subtle than "I give 10000$ for a positive review", they're not complete idiots. The precedent this sets is that developers and publishers have to respond to their customers, we don't have to eat all the crap they give us. Of course VGs are art, but again that doesn't make them untouchable. I'd be surprised if after all this mess for the next few years big games like ME3 will come out incomplete or with such sub-par work on any important part (especially the ending, obviously).

[MDT1]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm confused. I thought people said Bioware paid Gamespot and IGN off. Why would they be against this announcement if they were?

Because other gaming companies pay too and now gamers all over the world could realize that they don't have to accept every **** thats thrown at them and say thank you?

Edit: With all the attention this gets I'm sure developers all over the world are afraid they can't hide bad business practices and lazyness behind their  "artistic integrity" anymore.

Are you saying that some other game company paid Gamespot and IGN to slam Bioware after Bioware paid them to make positive comments about ME3? What company would stand to gain from that?

That makes no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense (though I'm sure there is no direct payment involved).
Its just IGN hast to please the industry to be in their good books and get first hand information etc.
And Bioware is only one developer compared to the interests of the whole industry.

Modifié par MDT1, 22 mars 2012 - 07:15 .

[Ryzaki]

SynheKatze wrote...

So much for 'artistic integrity' when they cut content from the game to sell it as DLC, made horrible decisions in order to appeal for the masses, and released a rushed ending that made no sense with the overall structure of the game and the lore.

Yeah, artistic integrity. Funny.

This is where I'm stand as well.

Artistic intergrity? Where's the complaints about day one DLC? At least be consistent!

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 mars 2012 - 07:15 .

[JustAndrewx88]

Couldn't care less what Gamespot has to say. They're just the same as IGN. Notice how it's all the trashy places on the internet that have a problem with this. BioWare is not spineless whatsoever for listening to the masses and trying to make them happy. I'd expect nothing less from BioWare. They've been great for a long time.

[MDT1]

Ryzaki wrote...

SynheKatze wrote...

So much for 'artistic integrity' when they cut content from the game to sell it as DLC, made horrible decisions in order to appeal for the masses, and released a rushed ending that made no sense with the overall structure of the game and the lore.

Yeah, artistic integrity. Funny.

This is where I'm stand as well.

Artistic intergrity? Where's the complaints about day one DLC? At least be consistent!

Fulgrim88 wrote...

I'll just leave this here because it's relevant. (Edit: Link fixed)

[Dragoonlordz]

SynheKatze wrote...

So much for 'artistic integrity' when they cut content from the game to sell it as DLC, made horrible decisions in order to appeal for the masses, and released a rushed ending that made no sense with the overall structure of the game and the lore.

Yeah, artistic integrity. Funny.

Hypocriscy. Not them but you. You don't get to use such as I underlined when at this time you are asking them to appeal to the masses who do not like the ending or want it changed at least not without looking hypocritical.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 22 mars 2012 - 07:26 .

[MoldySpore]

Kalms wrote...

MoldySpore wrote...

The fact of the matter is the ending is the only major issue with Mass Effect 3, and that seems to be the general consensus. And you shouldn't rate a game on a single part of it. 

Oh, okay. So if the ending nullifies and invalidates the rest of the game, emotionally speaking, I should just accept it?

Games without emotional payoff are meaningless. Even multiplayer has payoff: Less play time, clear a bronze challenge and you win! Yay!

A game needs to justify its story, and make the gamer feel like they accomplished what they needed to. Mass Effect 3 failed when it came to the ultimate payoff. It invoked a lot of negative feelings, and failed to show us what our actions accomplished. It just ended with a sigh - oh, and a plea to buy upcoming DLC.

You should really read the ENTIRE post before responding to someone. Immediately after what you quoted, I wrote:

...So while the reviews are good for the game as a whole, there can still
be a legitimate gripe with a part of it. And when that gripe is with 
the part of the game that is supposed to wrap up 3 entire games worth of
decisions and story, with Bioware boasting for months and months that
there would be VASTLY DIFFERENT endings that incorporate your choices,
it isn't selling out when you decide to fix that. It would be a slap in
the face if they ignored their fans now at the end when our feedback and
feelings are about the most IMPORTANT part of the series: the ending.

Point is, while the Bioware is pointing to high scores for the game overall, that doesn't invalidate the issues people have with the ending, nor does it make Bioware "sellouts" for wanting to address everyone's issues with the ending.

Modifié par MoldySpore, 22 mars 2012 - 07:26 .

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

Yeah because helping the fans(who are the ones who buy the games in the first place) who made you famous by buying your products is really spineless.That makes zero sense and is just plain stupid.If the company wants to change the ending to satisfy their customers , so what it takes a spine to stand up to the butt kissers(who won't tell you your flaws but will criticize you when you do something they don't like).

For me it's just one more reason not to go to gamespot.com and I would go even further by not giving them review copies of the game.Let them think about how they sound like idiots.

[Random citizen]

MoldySpore wrote...

Kalms wrote...

MoldySpore wrote...

The fact of the matter is the ending is the only major issue with Mass Effect 3, and that seems to be the general consensus. And you shouldn't rate a game on a single part of it. 

Oh, okay. So if the ending nullifies and invalidates the rest of the game, emotionally speaking, I should just accept it?

Games without emotional payoff are meaningless. Even multiplayer has payoff: Less play time, clear a bronze challenge and you win! Yay!

A game needs to justify its story, and make the gamer feel like they accomplished what they needed to. Mass Effect 3 failed when it came to the ultimate payoff. It invoked a lot of negative feelings, and failed to show us what our actions accomplished. It just ended with a sigh - oh, and a plea to buy upcoming DLC.

You should really read the ENTIRE post before responding to someone. Immediately after what you quoted, I wrote:

...So while the reviews are good for the game as a whole, there can still
be a legitimate gripe with a part of it. And when that gripe is with 
the part of the game that is supposed to wrap up 3 entire games worth of
decisions and story, with Bioware boasting for months and months that
there would be VASTLY DIFFERENT endings that incorporate your choices,
it isn't selling out when you decide to fix that. It would be a slap in
the face if they ignored their fans now at the end when our feedback and
feelings are about the most IMPORTANT part of the series: the ending.

Point is, while the Bioware is pointing to high scores for the game overall, that doesn't invalidate the issues people have with the ending, nor does it make Bioware "sellouts" for wanting to address everyone's issues with the ending.

QFT.

Modifié par Random citizen, 22 mars 2012 - 07:38 .

[catabuca]

Most game reviewers - and let's assume they aren't in the pocket of publishers - review games in a different manner to the way fans review games. They look for different things. Neither can ever be completely objective, but official game reviewers often attempt to use certain criteria, for at least part of their review, that aim toward objectivity as much as possible. That means not bringing to the table their own personal love or hate for the genre, the franchise, the developer, and so on. They are interested in reviewing gameplay mechanics, combat, narrative, graphics, accessibility, and a whole other host of things. This list will change from reviewer to reviewer. That being said, despite their differences from fans, they will often bring their own personal likes and dislikes to the table as well. But that is often not their primary objective. It depends on the type of review they are writing. There are many. Not all reviews are equal in their objectives.

This is why we see so much disparity between official reviews and fan reviews. We are, by the nature of being fans, invested in ways a game journalist who isn't a member of BSN, who hasn't replayed the series countless times, simply isn't.

That doesn't make either type of reviewer better or worse at reviews, or more or less trustworthy. It means there are a range of voices to pick from when looking at game reviews, depending on what type of gamer you are. If you are already a fan of a series, you'll probably get more out of reviews written by other fans when you're looking for a sense of the 'feeling' of the game, and you might supplement that with official game reviews when looking for more objective accounts of gameplay, level design, etc. If you aren't a long time fan of a series, you might put more stock in official reviews first and foremost, and leave it up to yourself and your own playing to decide that 'feeling' of the game. Everyone is different.

So if official reviewers are giving the game a high score, it's because they aren't coming at it with the same investment as the fans. There is nothing wrong with that, it's simply a fact of how reviewing works. Occasionally you might get an official reviewer who is, in fact, a long time fan of the franchise, but even then, they might not be registered on BSN, they may not spend the time we do discussing it, to the extent that we do.

When either 'side' (and I loathe calling it sides, since even within the 'Retake' movement there appear to be so many disparate ideas and gripes) refuses, or is simply unable for whatever reason, to remember the context under which various people talking and writing about all of this are working, some nasty generalisations get thrown around, that shines a rather ugly light on everyone involved.

[AlanC9]

MoldySpore wrote...
Agreed. I want a TRUE Paragon ending. I want the Happy go lucky everyone lives and the galaxy is saved with most of its worlds and races intact,

I would pay money for Bio to not make this ending.

[MoldySpore]

OutlawTorn6806 wrote...

My favorite ones:

Kevin VanOrd‏: 
The Internet accused Bioware of selling out. Then, it demanded Bioware sell out. Congratulations, Internet: you got what you wanted. 

Brendan Sinclair:
So if the government comes knocking, games are art. But when we hate the ending, they're products and the customer is always right. Got it.

http://www.gamespot....hanges-6367380/

This isn't about art vs. product or right vs. wrong. The fact is, calling a video game "art" is a double edged sword when trying to analyze a situation like this. While I agree it is a FORM of art, when people think of art they immediately think of a picture or a painting or a photograph. Something that is static. Asking a painter to go back and change a painting that has already dried and is sitting in a mueseum isn't really comparable to ADDING ADDITIONAL CONTENT to a video game. Video games are infinitely modifiable, shown easily by fan made mods AND the DLC we all download. Video games are most definitely a form of art, but not in the traditional sense.

So, when a painter recieves negative feedback on a painting, usually they will just take that into account for the next painting, which could have nothing to do with the theme of the previous painting. For a programmer or director of a video game, especially a multi-game series where you have millions of people PURCHASING a product, which they have been invested in for the better part of a decade, and you have such a universally negative response to the CLIMAX of that series, you have to look at it objectively and realize you might have made mistakes, and that there IS an obligation to the customers that have supported you this far. If it was a few internet trolls, then whatever. But when you see polls with over 90% of people having a problem with the ending, you have to think "well, perhaps we messed up" if you are involved in the project, especially if you were involved with the part that people have an issue with.

Bioware is doing this, and is listening to their fans feedback like they have with both of the other games. Hopefully they will come through with what players wanted to begin with.

This all might be an important lesson to learn for future publishers and game creators who want to have a game series with so much choice and depth that it spans many years and many changes. Perhaps for a series like Mass Effect the fans should have been involved in deciding the options available to them in the climax. This could be done a number of ways without revealing spoilers. A simple way for fans to express their desires before the ending was made could have easily mitigated this issue.

In all honesty though, I never expected Bioware to bumble the ending this badly. It makes me think that EA is responsible and that the game was released early or something, because I have thought Bioware has done an AMAZING job with the story and character development right up until those last 15 minutes or so. The feeling I had in my gut when it was over was so not what I was expecting to be feeling after the climax of my favorite RPG game series of all time. It was almost a feeling of betrayal.

And that is the difference between traditional art and video game "art". It is hard to feel BETRAYED by a painting or a song or a picture that exists at singular points in your life. Contrast that to a video game like Mass Effect, where you are invested and care for the characters and outcome of the game over a span of YEARS, even more so in a branching RPG game where you are helping to drive that unique story.

Modifié par MoldySpore, 22 mars 2012 - 07:54 .