1311 réponses à ce sujet

[Unit-Alpha]

Grasich wrote...

MHBILLS_Endurell wrote...

For the love of all that's holy people stop feeding the trolls!

You seem to have forgotten that this is the BSN. Posting is synonymous with feeding trolls.

TROLLS EVERYWHERE!

[Torrible]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Torrible wrote...

I love how people regard every bit of marketing puffery as false advertising. If instead Bioware had said "We can't give any guarantees about the game or its ending", would you have bought it solely based on the trailers, demo and other gameplay footage? If so, you can't claim misleading advertisement.

Yes, I would have, because it's Mass Effect, a fantastic franchise.

My point exactly.

[Makatak]

Video games that are produced for a profit are not art.

Bastion, Limbo, Journey, Braid; those games are art. The profit that their developers hopefully see is nice, but those were truly labors of love. This was a labor of profit done by people who I hope love what they were doing.

See the difference, OP?

And I'm not saying that the people who made this game didn't love what they were doing, I'm just saying that if they weren't getting paid, or if they were getting paid a fraction of their income, it would be a totally different situation. At that point, I would absolutely buy into whatever story they chose to make for me.

But they joined with EA to enter themselves into a consumer-driven market. The bottom line is not integrity, but sales. Is EA/Bioware facing a significant customer lashing? Absolutely. Were people angry about the way Bastion ended? I'm sure there's a few. But you won't find them demanding they change the ending. That would be pointless. If anything, I would demand instead that Bastion's makers make another game (I won't, though, because Bastion was an entire story; if they did make another game, it would have to be an entirely different story in my eyes, but that's a rant I won't go on).

But here's the difference: those games I mentioned above delivered what they promised. They weren't looking at "target audiences." They weren't trying to "pander sales." Thatgamecompany, for instance, made a product. And they said, "We offer this to any who will buy it." (I am paraphrasing; I doubt there is any actual quote of that nature) Bioware/EA, on the other hand, have investors that they must return investments to. They have promises that they must fulfill, and so they look to us, the consumers, in hopes that we will assist them. And so, they make promises. They lie, little white lies, about their product. They make it out to be perhaps more than it truly is. This is called advertisement. I cannot fault them, because when investments are on the line, and amounts of money that I cannot possibly fathom, I would do the same thing that they did. But, if I messed up as gloriously as they did, I would expect exactly what fans are doing, and I would likely react the way they did as well: PR, cover holes, contain the problem. This happens in Hollywood too. It happens on Broadway.

Instead of answering the OP on the grounds they laid out (comparison to movies), I'll go through another medium: Broadway. If a play is unsuccessful, what happens?

Have you perhaps heard of Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark? I encourage you, OP, and anyone who follows this train of thought, to do some research on it. In its initial run, this musical bombed. It's been hailed as the worst musical ever written. It grossed more than almost any musical ever because people wanted to go see "the worst musical ever written." Actors nearly died performing some of the stunts, it was so unsafe. So, after closing the initial run, what did the company do? Did they say, "THIS IS OUR ART, AND YOU SHOULD CONTINUE PAYING US!"? No. They went back and rewrote the musical. So your comment that "art" should not be rewritten is absolute bollocks. Art gets rewritten all the time. And it's actually the farther that one moves from art (movies, and then into video games) that we start to see this "artistic integrity" movement crop up, in defense of games like Mass Effect 3.

Are games art? That's a much longer argument that goes well beyond the scope of the Mass Effect 3 endings. But in this case? I would say absolutely not. It's a product. It's like a Cabbage Patch Kid, and if those are faulty, you take them back. I bought a copy of this product, and I am unsatisfied with it. Were it any other product, I would absolutely take it back and ask for a refund.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Second guy whose made this statement.

Please think for yourself.

Uh, I don't understand, is this a jab at me?

[Grasich]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Grasich wrote...

MHBILLS_Endurell wrote...

For the love of all that's holy people stop feeding the trolls!

You seem to have forgotten that this is the BSN. Posting is synonymous with feeding trolls.

TROLLS EVERYWHERE!

[MetalCargo999]

Luc0s wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Well, the problem is that once it leaves the dev's hands and they sell it as a product with ****ING DAY ONE DLC it is no longer art and can thus be changed by consumer demand.

That, and we were blatantly lied to, breaking the reader-writer contract.

WRONG!

The cutscenes, narrative and story within games are very much art and always will be art.

Are movies art? If you answer is "yes" than you should also understand why the non-interactive parts of video-games are art.

herein lies the problem, Luc0s.  The ending is wrong.  If you make a mistake, artist or not, integrity demands you fix the problem if possible.  This is likely the main mistake with the ending; the catalyst's logic is contradicted by Shepard's possible experience with the Geth and EDI.  This can still make for a possible ending, but Shepard's "conversion" must be justified in relation to the Mass Effect universe, and the reality of that fictional universe should not be suspended "just because it's the ending".  "Just because it's the ending" is a poor justification, is redundant, and renders the rest of the story meaningless since such arbitrary rules can be set in place to move the story forward.  I think this is what a lot of people mean when they say, "everything I've done is meaningless!", although they also have a good point about how infuential war assets are in the end game.  Many points have also been raised about Shepard's personality shift in these scenes, as he becomes the sole property of the author and is stripped away from the player, only to be given back after the conversation to make the final choice.  Note how all of these ending problems precede the ending cinematics you say shouldn't be altered or changed because they belong to the artist.  Even according to your own logic, our complaints to the ending thus far are legitimate.

As for your point about the ending cinematics, I think you're right.  The similarities are a bit irksome, but if the manner in which they came about felt logically coherent, I can guarantee that there would be less complaints about it.  Because at least I wouldn't be complaining about it.

[Dreogan]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dav3VsTh3World wrote...

I'm saying this right now to use terms like "breaking the contract" when there is no contract to speak of other than a metophorical theory and hold NO LEGAL OBLIGATION and is only implimented by those who want the story to work the way they want it to.

I'm guessing someone here didn't enjoy classic literature in school.

It's symbolic. Metaphorical. An analogy. Period.

Nobody but yourself thinks (or in your case, thought) it was an actual written contract.

Am I the only one that's frustrated with being one of the few that actually understands the writer-reader contract? I suspect you are as well. It cuts at the very heart of the ending issue; mocking any pontifications over "art" (a hackneyed term) and even the validity of defending the conclusion to the trilogy.

It's not that I'm saying the ending is bad, it's that as fiction it is invalid.

Modifié par Dreogan, 24 mars 2012 - 02:12 .

[Jackal7713]

Did Bioware say " we are not going to have a,b,c endings" in pre-launch interviews? Yes

Are there a,b,c endings? Yes

Does that mean Bioware lied? Yes

Did people pay for ME 3 based on not having A,B, C endings? Yes

Do they have the right as consumers to ask for what was promised? Yes

Nuff said

[withneelandi]

Opsrbest wrote...

Marque De Leon wrote...

Opsrbest wrote...


-------------------------------------------------------
Actually claiming to do the following:

- Not purchase another Bioware product.
- Cancel a SWTOR subscrip.
- Return your ME3 copy.
- Violate forum TOS and be a prat on the forums by attacking Bioware, Bioware employees, etc.

Those above have all been stated factual evidentary statements made by the people who, if they don't get what they want, will respond in that manner. That is in fact forcing. It is in fact called coercion.

Are you insane? Aside from the last one all of the things you listed are RIGHTS THAT CONSUMERS HAVE! That's not forcing! That's not coercion! That's exercising your rights as a consumer!

Learn your legal implication.

In the laws governing wills, coercion is present when a testator is forced by another to make provisions in his or her will that he or she otherwise would not make if permitted to act according to free choice. It is an element of both duress and Undue Influence, two ways in which a testator is deprived of his or her free choice in making the will. If coercion is established in a proceeding to admit a will to probate, the document will be denied probate, thereby becoming void; and the property of the decedent will be distributed pursuant to the laws of Descent and Distribution.


I never actually ment to hit submit so adendum for fixing ~ As a consumer you have the right to refuse payment on any product you deem that does not meet the requirements or expectancy set by the manufacter or creator. As
a consumer you do not have the rights to legally use, in a proclimation of diservice or distrust or by any means to which you as the consumer feel the product recieved from the manufacturer does not meet expectations, to claim or invalidate any product under the duress or assertion that fiscal damage or harm may come to the representative of
or manufacter of any product. Once that statment is made by a consumer in a notorized fashion all rights of the consumer and product accountability end. The manufacter or creator of a product is then legally eligable to pursue means of restitution or recant against the complaintent once the consumer has gone beyond the means of acceptable consumer rights protection.

So to make the satement *(first paragrpah) of Wills IE:Artistic Intent it is derived to wholly be indivisable from the consumer. Should a product or service provided be less then expectancy or derived intention based on statement where the Testator(Bioware) manufacter creates an unideal procession or finds that it ends in a means unsatisfactiorily to the consumer the artist IE:Wills is protected against all means of injunction or duress from the
consumer. Any action taken to create discontent or slander towards the wills/Testator IE:Artistic Intent/Bioware is in breach of ...... a whole list of things that i'm not referencing ........ and commits the consumer to provision requirements represented in factual standing that can without intent or perception show that the Wills/Testator has failed to hold standing with the product or service  no recanting shall be neccessary by the wills/testator. Any duress expressed from the consumer is wholly implied blah blah, basically the way it breaks down is this: A
piece of artwork can not be changed under any influence by the consumerwhere the statement made is based out of intent propositional or factual where the harm may be unintentional but still occuring in fiscal harm. All customer actions made can not be used against the Will/Testator in accordiance with consumer desires or applications of a
product or wills.

----------
There. Fixed the friggin post.

I've got a law degree and that makes absolutely no sense to me.

What juristiction is that from, why are you throwing terminology from consumer law and the law of succession together? The laws regarding the creation of a will reffer to situations involving .... the creation of a will but I don't see the application here.

You may come from a jurisdiction that does thing very, very differently to the UK legal system, but seriously, cite cases, texts legal journals, i'll understand them. I'm genuinely curiuous, perhaps its just too late at night but your post makes no sense to me.

I want to understand....

[Unit-Alpha]

Torrible wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Torrible wrote...

I love how people regard every bit of marketing puffery as false advertising. If instead Bioware had said "We can't give any guarantees about the game or its ending", would you have bought it solely based on the trailers, demo and other gameplay footage? If so, you can't claim misleading advertisement.

Yes, I would have, because it's Mass Effect, a fantastic franchise.

My point exactly.

Lol, what? My point was that I couldn't care less if they said stuff about the ending before release.

"If instead Bioware had said "We can't give any guarantees about the game
or its ending", would you have bought it solely based on the trailers..."

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 24 mars 2012 - 02:06 .

[Unit-Alpha]

Dreogan wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dav3VsTh3World wrote...

I'm saying this right now to use terms like "breaking the contract" when there is no contract to speak of other than a metophorical theory and hold NO LEGAL OBLIGATION and is only implimented by those who want the story to work the way they want it to.

I'm guessing someone here didn't enjoy classic literature in school.

It's symbolic. Metaphorical. An analogy. Period.

Nobody but yourself thinks (or in your case, thought) it was an actual written contract.

Am I the only one that's frustrated with being one of the few that actually understands the writer-reader contract? I suspect you are as well. It cuts at the very heart of the ending issue; mocking any pontifications over "art" (a hackneyed term) and even the validity of defending the conclusion to the trilogy.

It's not that I'm saying the ending is bad, it's that as fiction it is invalid.

I can't even express how frustrating it is. If only people would do a simple Google search.

Edit for stupid extra word from an earlier post -.-

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 24 mars 2012 - 02:07 .

[Grasich]

withneelandi wrote...


I've got a law degree and that makes absolutely no sense to me.

What juristiction is that from, why are you throwing terminology from consumer law and the law of succession together? The laws regarding the creation of a will reffer to situations involving .... the creation of a will but I don't see the application here.

You may come from a jurisdiction that does thing very, very differently to the UK legal system, but seriously, cite cases, texts legal journals, i'll understand them. I'm genuinely curiuous, perhaps its just too late at night but your post makes no sense to me.

I want to understand....

That just means you've been paying attention.

There's a lot of poo flying around in this thread, and a little bit of sense mixed in here and there.

Modifié par Grasich, 24 mars 2012 - 02:07 .

[Torrible]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Torrible wrote...

I love how people regard every bit of marketing puffery as false advertising. If instead Bioware had said "We can't give any guarantees about the game or its ending", would you have bought it solely based on the trailers, demo and other gameplay footage? If so, you can't claim misleading advertisement.

Yes, I would have, because it's Mass Effect, a fantastic franchise.

My point exactly.

Lol, what? My point was that I couldn't care less if they said stuff about the ending before release.

"If instead Bioware had said "We can't give any guarantees about the game
or its ending", would you have bought it solely based on the trailers..."

Which means you can't claim that Bioware's supposed 'false' promises made you buy the game.

[Ziggeh]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Guys, this is really simple.

Demanding? Yes, that's wrong. Asking, no, that's not.

They are just words. Intent is the same.

What? "They are just words"? What kind of argument is that? They mean different things! This is what words are for, the communication of complex ideas, you can't just say, "apples, oranges, lets call the whole thing off", otherwise we're just basically just making noises.

In this case the difference is who has rights, and massive hints: t'ain't us.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 24 mars 2012 - 02:08 .

[MHBILLS_Endurell]

Luc0s wrote...
Art should only be changed if the artist decides that it should be changed.

My sister is a professional muralist and portrait artist

And guess what, if the customer wants the art changed...SHE CHANGES IT.

End of story, end of line...and also: hold the line!

[Paparob]

Torrible wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Torrible wrote...

I love how people regard every bit of marketing puffery as false advertising. If instead Bioware had said "We can't give any guarantees about the game or its ending", would you have bought it solely based on the trailers, demo and other gameplay footage? If so, you can't claim misleading advertisement.

Yes, I would have, because it's Mass Effect, a fantastic franchise.

My point exactly.

I think you're completely missing the point. I was led to believe something about a product whether that be intentionally or not it happened. Pre-release statements indicated numerous and differing endings, that obviously wasn't the case. It doesn't matter if that was the key selling point for me. I'm not looking for an awesome sound system when I buy a car but if I happen to be buying one and the dealer says this particular car has a great sound system I'm going to go back to the lot when I found out that is just an average setup. "Hey buddy, yeah the car drives great but about that sound system you made me think was awesome..."

[MaskofSkin]

It's a product. As a consumer you have a right to let your opinion be heard. Fact is, we were lied to about the ending of the game. We have a right to expect what was promised.

[Unit-Alpha]

Torrible wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Torrible wrote...

I love how people regard every bit of marketing puffery as false advertising. If instead Bioware had said "We can't give any guarantees about the game or its ending", would you have bought it solely based on the trailers, demo and other gameplay footage? If so, you can't claim misleading advertisement.

Yes, I would have, because it's Mass Effect, a fantastic franchise.

My point exactly.

Lol, what? My point was that I couldn't care less if they said stuff about the ending before release.

"If instead Bioware had said "We can't give any guarantees about the game
or its ending", would you have bought it solely based on the trailers..."

Which means you can't claim that Bioware's supposed 'false' promises made you buy the game.

Did I ever? Nope. For some people it did.

Projecting again.

[Heather Cline]

Endurell I'm a graphic designer. If the client wants the logo changed or something else changed I do it. I may ask questions to get more information so I can get it to how they want it, but I ultimately change it so that the logo is up to their standards and mine.

[Fubarman]

Can everyone stop feeding these trolls, your pushing threads down that you know have a purpose.

[Jackal7713]

Do people plan on being powned by a cooperation for the rest of their lives. As consumers you do have rights you know. Maybe some of you missed that email.

[Grasich]

Ziggeh wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Guys, this is really simple.

Demanding? Yes, that's wrong. Asking, no, that's not.

They are just words. Intent is the same.

What? "They are just words"? What kind of argument is that? They mean different things! This is what words are for, the communication of complex ideas, you can't just say, "apples, oranges, lets call the whole thing off", otherwise we're just basically just making noises.

In this case the difference is who has rights, and massive hints: t'ain't us.

When dealing with a product, the consumer has the right to ask for just about anything they want. The supplier has the right to refuse. At this point, the consumer has the right to not spend any more money.

In the case of the supplier LYING, the consumer has the right to demand a fix.

[VigilancePress]

Jackal7713 wrote...

Did Bioware say " we are not going to have a,b,c endings" in pre-launch interviews? Yes

Are there a,b,c endings? Yes

Does that mean Bioware lied? Yes

Did people pay for ME 3 based on not having A,B, C endings? Yes

Do they have the right as consumers to ask for what was promised? Yes

Nuff said

This. I have no problem with demanding that a company deliver what was promised. I did not pay for a multiplayer game with 2/3 of a great story tacked on. I paid for a role-playing game that would deliver "different endings" for different playthroughs. Instead, I get one ending that isn't worth watching more than once.

Repair this, give me the choices I want, make the endings meaningful and fun to watch, and I might actually buy more games. Don't repair it, and you've lost a customer (and vocal advocate) forever.

[aliengmr1]

I'm actually sick of the Bioware "lied" crap myself. All I care about is them doing their best. ME3 showed their best, but the last ten minutes was their worst. Simple as that. They want to fix it, then I'll feel like buying stuff from them, if not, then I'll take my business elsewhere.

[TheGreenAlloy]

Torrible wrote...

I love how people regard every bit of marketing puffery as false advertising. If instead Bioware had said "We can't give any guarantees about the game or its ending", would you have bought it solely based on the trailers, demo and other gameplay footage? If so, you can't claim misleading advertisement.

It's not like we're suing. 

Casey specifically said this wasn't the kind of game where you only had A,B or C to choose from regarding the ending. Big whoop, that's exactly what it was.