131 réponses à ce sujet

[ArcanistLibram]

Attention video game developers: In order to protect the future of the video game industry, you must destroy your successful series, alienate your core fanbase and hide behind critics when people point our your mistakes.

This can't go wrong at all.

[bleetman]

You know what I wonder? If a game comes out in a mechanically botched state, their fanbase is expecting of patches to compensate. That's just an accepted reaction. If the gameplay is broken, it should be fixed.

If a game comes out with a botched narrative and people say "so, you should do something about that, you guys", they're called entitled fanboy whiners and people starting flailing their arms around predicting the doom of the industry if the developer in question "caves in".

Interesting.

[Midarenkov]

False premise, it would not set a precedent. Ignoring that, if BioWare fixing their mistakes would be unprecedented, it still would not be a danger to anyone, least of all any potential developers.

edit: I dislike his implications that video gaming is so fragile an art form that it can not withstand criticism. When did replacing quality with mediocrity become an acceptable practice? ._.

Modifié par Midarenkov, 23 mars 2012 - 06:36 .

[OriginalTibs]

starmine76 wrote...

Honestly, he has a point. Whether or not the ending does justice to the series is irrelevant next to the greater implications of Bioware's actions.

www.gamesradar.com/mass-effect-3-ending-why-it-vital-future-health-games-bioware-do-not-change-it/ 


EDIT: For those of you who are dismissinghis words because he hasn't seen the ending, you miss the point of the article. This isn't about the ending. This isn't about whether or not the ending was a satisfying conclusion, the point of this article is that if Bioware changes the ending, the implications of their actions would be far reaching, and setting a very dangerous precedent. You dont need to have played the game to realize that.

He skirts around the consequences of an (I think) important possibility: If a profit-oriented executive chopped off the ending at the indoctrination puzzle because finishing the full game would take too long or cost too much, then it would be far worse for the future of the game industry.

Writers of the quality this team has displayed, time after time, argues strongly that the issue of external usurpation of artistic license should not be attributed to the fans, but to the management that caused such an incredible abberation.

The quality still present in the endings as they are speaks well of the writers, in my view, considering that those who write their paychecks took a meataxe to the story and then expected the staff to adequately clean up the mess they left.

We don't know, but to argue that we should just pipe down is a journalistic disservice.

[Tigerman123]

The next morning, as Gregor Samsa was waking up from pleasant dreams, he discovered that in his bed he had been changed back into a traveling salesman. He lived happily there after

[AlanC9]

Tigerman123 wrote...

The next morning, as Gregor Samsa was waking up from pleasant dreams, he discovered that in his bed he had been changed back into a traveling salesman. He lived happily there after

I laughed.

At this point we don't really know what Bio's got planned. But I don't think we need to worry about precedent. When Pam found Bobby Ewing in the shower it ruined the integrity of Dallas, but not television in general.

And whatever Bio does or doesn't do to the ending of ME3, they can't make you DL it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 mars 2012 - 06:51 .

[joejoe099]

KBomb wrote...

Stopped reading at this:

I don’t know what the ending of Mass Effect 3 entails, and I don’t care. I haven’t even played Mass Effect 3 yet. Hell, I’m still working through the first one at the moment. But despite that lack of personal contact with and investment in the issue

jesus christ, it's fox news all over again.

[batlin]

What a tool. Way to completely overblow the importance of one f*cking game.

First, it's already been done before. Did Fallout 3 create some huge horrible precedent that is wreaking havoc on the gaming industry? No. Like I said, he's a tool.

[bigbade]

lmao, how can he expect to be taken seriously after those first 2 sentences? On a brighter note makes journalism a less scary field to venture into when you see this kind of competition   

[slimgrin]

Yes, if Bioware does this...all life as we know it will cease to exist.  Give me a break.  

Is it just me, or are game journalists in a class of their own when it comes to sucking up?

Modifié par slimgrin, 23 mars 2012 - 07:00 .

[The man of myth]

Oh, starmine76 you are wasting your time on this group. Not really worth the effort. They think they are completely justified by stomping their feet and holding their breath. They think the vision belongs to them because they paid money for a product and on and on and on. Just look at how quickly they jump on to debase the argument. At this point what could Bioware to do satisfy these bed-wetters?

[RolandX9]

*pfft*

http://fallout.wikia...ki/Broken_Steel

That ship has sailed.

Modifié par RolandX9, 23 mars 2012 - 07:03 .

[Biosargent]

[Tovanus]

Here's a link to an article that rips apart what was dreadfully wrong with the endings. He doesn't really come out and say anything about whether Bioware SHOULD or SHOULD NOT change the ending, he just wanted to write an article explaining how terrible the ending was.

http://www.shamusyou...edtale/?p=15395


If someone can really defend the ending after all that and say Bioware should not change it, they have no standards. Sounds harsh, but that's my opinion.

[Blc949]

I would like to point out, my opinion was a pretty solid "fans shouldn't have any input on an ending/story etc".

That's how bad this ending was. It took a long time STAUNCH "fans shouldn't touch this stuff" opinion and turned me 180. Or at least it did on this game.

I will at least give Bioware credit that they were able to change mine (and I'm guessing many others) opinion on this one. Unfortunately that's like giving the banks credit for opening peoples eyes by wrecking the economy.

[HolmesLovesGuinness]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

That article is full of stupid.

Oh my yes. I think most of the articles cropping up wringing their hands over how awful it will be if BW buckles to pressure and changes the ending are just milking the issue to fill space since this is 'news worthy'. Clearly other games, movies, books and what not have had their endings changed based on negative fan / audience reactions. This is *nothing new*.

[RiouHotaru]

batlin wrote...

What a tool. Way to completely overblow the importance of one f*cking game.

First, it's already been done before. Did Fallout 3 create some huge horrible precedent that is wreaking havoc on the gaming industry? No. Like I said, he's a tool.

But in Fallout 3's case, Todd Howard HIMSELF said he didn't like the ending, and had Broken Steel developed.  Bioware is completely backing their own endings here.  To cave in to the fan's whims every time they shout loud enough about something DOES set a dangerous precedent.

[Syfoor]

yay, more people to choke *rolls his sleeves*. god damn it if these people can make reviewing websites, get E3 passes and stuff, i could cure cancer or discover warp speed in few days.

[whiteraider]

The only thing dooming the gaming industry is the syscophantic behaviour of some gaming jurnos, that then have to desperately defend the indefensable.

Changing commercial 'art' to meet fans (or at least the paying customers) expectations has gone on along as there have been paying customers.

I and others here feel that we are paying customers, not patrons handing over a stipend for the 'artist' to create whatever they want!
Bioware gave us a brief that we accepeted then failed to deliver, in the view of many.

Actually delivering what was expected, is more likely to be the saviour of the gaming industry, not the final nail in its coffin, but it may prove to be the death of some gaming sites!

[Tovanus]

RiouHotaru wrote...

batlin wrote...

What a tool. Way to completely overblow the importance of one f*cking game.

First, it's already been done before. Did Fallout 3 create some huge horrible precedent that is wreaking havoc on the gaming industry? No. Like I said, he's a tool.

But in Fallout 3's case, Todd Howard HIMSELF said he didn't like the ending, and had Broken Steel developed.  Bioware is completely backing their own endings here.  To cave in to the fan's whims every time they shout loud enough about something DOES set a dangerous precedent.

I think there are two different ways of looking at "fans shouting." I think of fans shouting as being more an issue of numbers. A few guys, or a small crowd, can yell loud and post all over the internet in capslock, and no one will care. A company taking notice of fans shouting, to me, is all about the pure number of fans expressing disappointment. No capslock necessary or yelling Youtube videos.

That said, you usually don't get numbers like this unless the author has flagrantly abandoned integrity to their past work. What we're seeing is akin (to a much smaller degree because of the relative size of game audiences to movie audiences) to what George Lucas has experienced because of the prequel trilogy and Indiana Jones 4 or what the guys who made Lost experienced. The only difference is that shows and movies aren't seen as being malleable after they're released, while games (because of the sheer prevalence of DLC) are.

Frankly, when I see numbers like this, I always tend to think the fans are right. Lucas did severely damage the quality of the Star Wars story (anyone in doubt should check out Redlettermedia's excellent review of each prequel movie). The Lost guys did get revealed as having introduced mystery after mystery without taking the time an average fan took to think through the plot ramifications. And Bioware has demeaned their entire universe. Damn that Starchild.

[The_Duke75]

Awww, an article from a website that has EA ads all over the place.

I could care less although I'd have to try really hard.

[NY ASS4551N]

Bioware would have a worse impact to the future health games if they did not change the ending. It will allow other developers to make endings that are just incoherent and don't make sense. That would be unacceptable, for all the people that enjoy the story of video games.

[Tovanus]

NY ASS4551N wrote...

Bioware would have a worse impact to the future health games if they did not change the ending. It will allow other developers to make endings that are just incoherent and don't make sense. That would be unacceptable, for all the people that enjoy the story of video games.

This whole episode actually gives me more hope in better endings for other game series. I like to think that Bioware will be a cautionary tale for other developers who think that "endings don't matter," and that fans don't give a damn about stories located in a game rather than movies or tv shows.

I mean, if I were a company like, say, Ubisoft - who intend to conclude their Assassin's Creed trilogy of games this year - I'd see this situation and go to the writers and say, "Guys, take as much time as you need to raise the quality of that ending. As much time as you need. And you know what? Let's focus test it a bit. And not rely on deus ex machina devices. Let's try to make this as fitting as possible."

[Jayce]

starmine76 wrote...

Honestly, he has a point. Whether or not the ending does justice to the series is irrelevant next to the greater implications of Bioware's actions.

www.gamesradar.com/mass-effect-3-ending-why-it-vital-future-health-games-bioware-do-not-change-it/ 


EDIT: For those of you who are dismissinghis words because he hasn't seen the ending, you miss the point of the article. This isn't about the ending. This isn't about whether or not the ending was a satisfying conclusion, the point of this article is that if Bioware changes the ending, the implications of their actions would be far reaching, and setting a very dangerous precedent. You dont need to have played the game to realize that.

Maybe he should've made that argument to Bethseda four years ago or Square Enix last year....

Games, novels and movies have all made adjustments based on fan reaction. Did Peter Jackson compromise his 'artistic integrity' when he removed the Arwen scenes from Helm's Deep because the feedback from One Ring.net was against it? 

You can't say listening to the fans' feedback is "important" and then complain the fans' are compromising your vision when the feedback is negative.

This is the fundamental oversight of the 'creative' argument. Gaming is a billion dollar industry. However you wrap it, publishers' primary concern are their profits. It's why more and more titles are streamlined to maximize sales, it's why games that are commercial flops don't get sequels, even when they're critically acclaimed.

Bioware's move to at least address fans' concerns is nothing but good commercial practice. It appeases the disappointed fan base and shows they like people liking their product. The 'creatives' may not like it, but I'm afraid the bottom line is the bottom line.

Modifié par Jayce F, 23 mars 2012 - 07:31 .

[Alexraptor1]

Geez, I'm sick and tired of these loonies waving around "dangerous precedent" as a blanket statement.

They just keep yapping about the dangerous precedent without even considering the reasons or the circomstances of the situation.
And each situation is unique, how, why and what matters, and cannot be covered in a blanket statement.

And Jar Jar? seriously? Jar Jar was an "annoyance" to most fans, but his presence did not completely destroy and invalidate the entire Star Wars franchise... so yeah.