1334 réponses à ce sujet

[jeweledleah]

I'm not surprised that Mac and Casey are not going to be at PAx. worst case scenario, they are sending someone that fans are not personally mad at, at the moment, in hopes that fans would go easy on him. best case scenario, they are hard at work, fixing up the ending. I'm not 100% certain, but I believe, Mike Gamble mentioned something about speaking about endings?

and even if PAX does nothing... the promise was to give us some information in April. PAX seems like a natural place to do that, but.. its only a start of April. Bioware still has the rest of the month to say something if they don't, at PAX.

hmm... this was difficult to type up... patient, I'm not

[TheGoddess0fWar]

Didn't think I could be anymore disappointed.

[Mister Mida]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Bedevil123 wrote...

really? just out of simple curiosity what did you do work on/in mass effect 2?

EDIT: thank you btw! ME2 was a great game, and your talking to us here on the forums is a very nice sight for sore eyes

Plot and story analysis...

Sir, looking at ME2's plot, you did a poor job on analyzing it.

[Dreogan]

jarrettwold wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

jarrettwold  wrote:
 It was crushing.  Because, at that moment my epic hero was transformed into little old me.  A bit personal, but that's why I escape into video games, music, movies and books.  There are times where I need a little more hope than life's giving me

You already knew the answer-- added emphasis for you. What we've seen throughout this whole ordeal is the penalty of the storyteller breaking the suspension of disbelief. The story, the fictive universe, of Mass Effect, existed in your mind for five years. When those last five minutes came about, a series of errors forced you to second-guess the story, brought you out of that universe, and did much more damage to that universe (by invalidation) than the explosion of relays could ever do to the actual universe of Mass Effect. The fabric of Mass Effect was torn.

This has happened in smaller scale in other works, but Mass Effect is unique. You were led through, again, five years and three "renewals" of the writer-reader contract. Every single "renewal" multiplies the destruction of the universe when the suspension of disbelief is broken.

It didn't exist for me for five years, as I picked up Mass Effect 2 last year.  I think in some ways that video games deliberately break the fourth wall and that's a good thing.  I mean, today's 360 avatars are going to be vividly real in oh 20 .  The possibility of it visually being a simulacrum of me is a very real possibility, hopefully a bit more buff That's where Mass Effect is groundbreaking is in that it did it so well.  It really reached out and was like here you're Shep.  The illusion of choice was so well done compared to previous games.  

As far as writer-reader contracts.  I have no idea, or experience in that.  I wouldn't even try to go to a wiki and read what exactly that meant... but yea.  I would say that playing ME2 last year kept it fresh for me going into this year.  

I would love to see a panel of sociologists and psychologists dissect the impact of Mass Effect and the ensuing backlash.  I don't know why this resonated so quickly and so loudly.  

The entire reason the decisions were so compelling in Mass Effect is Bioware was able to force your mind into Shepard's, rather than a third-person camera. You may not have played five years, but you certainly did have a strong connection to the character, and as a result the story. It wouldn't resonate with you otherwise.

The writer-reader contract isn't a legal agreement, it's more of a(n unwritten) system of guidelines writers tend to follow to avoid breaking the suspension of disbelief. Mass Effect doesn't exist on a disc or at Bioware, it exists in the head of the person immersed in its world. This isn't limited to Mass Effect-- it's true of most fiction; all games, anything where the suspension of disbelief is invoked to create a universe inside your head. Maintaining the suspension of disbelief is essential-- without it, books are abandoned, games are put down at a random save point, you never bother to finish That Movie once your friend comes to visit. Breaking the suspension of disbelief -- or never managing to invoke it -- results in a story that is not compelling.

While it is true you can play as your avatar in a game, such a representation is compelling because you can "move" your mind's eye to the screen. You become that avatar. If your super-buff facsimile of yourself suddenly deflated during a dramatic scene (with a comic thbbt) the typical reaction would be to second-guess the scene. This breaks the suspension of disbelief, and makes it Just Another Talkie.

Mass Effect transcended this until the last few minutes, when we found out not the genre shifted (space opera to mind**** scifi), badly-defined characters were introduced (star-god-child), ill-explained concepts which seemed to clash with existant themes were introduced (synthetics will never get along with organics), ill-explained logic breaks were tossed in our lap (yo dawg, racisim), and poorly-defined ... stuff came out of nowhere (space magic!). All of these are violations of the writer-reader contract, and this isn't even an exhaustive list. In the last five minutes. Keep in mind many of these can be resolved through hysterical backpedeling through the various apocrypha of the game, but the presentation absolutely failed to sell these (evidence is the audience reaction). The selling is the breach.

Our brains just basically said "screw you guys, I'm goin' home" and the universe we built up in our minds throughout the story just... shattered. That is why we just won't let it go, we resent a story that forces us to so suddenly second-guess the Teller. It resonated so quickly because it was such a catastrophic failure of storytelling a huge portion of Bioware's strongest supporters ran right into it.

Modifié par Dreogan, 29 mars 2012 - 08:47 .

[Dridengx]

Cgrissom wrote...

Hold the Line!

I see less and less of you holding

[tanuki]

I've read on the other forum that the guys who will be on PAX are Chris Priestly, Mike Gamble, Corey Gaspur, Patrick Weekes, John Dombrow and Reid Buckmaster.

Don't know if it's accurate though.

[Dreogan]

Ashley_82 wrote...

I've read on the other forum that the guys who will be on PAX are Chris Priestly, Mike Gamble, Corey Gaspur, Patrick Weekes, John Dombrow and Reid Buckmaster.

Don't know if it's accurate though.

May God have mercy on their souls. And I hope they have the sense to announce something significant related to the ending fix.

[Kurokenshi]

Dreogan wrote...

Kurokenshi wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

mokponobi wrote...

Thanks Mr Woo, for engaging the fans in a discussion for a bit. I appreciate hearing from you guys even if I disagree with what is said.

Hopefully, you can pick out the posts that are polite and respectful and continue to be patient with the hot heads.

Cheers.

You're welcome. I wouldn't be here if I didn't love our community like I do. And despite what people say, we do listen and we can pick out the gems amid the chaff. We have the technology.

We don't expect people to like us or agree with us all the time. But we would prefer it if people freaked out a little less.

We freak out because we care!

And thank you for your feedback.

What was your favorite part about the freaking out?!

The cupcake part. I should get back to work stay classy people!

[Mixon]

Hold the Line!

[Petrikles]

Stanley Woo wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Ok but why exactly have you done the ending in the worst possible way? The endings of the prequels were great. Why the drastical change? I can't think about it without DA2 comming to mind.

I disagree that the ending was done "in the worst possible way." After all, there have been positive comments and it has spawned a lot of great discussion, theories, and criticism. A "worst possible" ending would not have had that kind of power.

Why is it so hard for you to stick to a successful formula? Is it a sort of contest? I don't get it.

If you have a formula to guarantee that everyone will like waht you've done, then you have a billion-dollar idea that every game developer would love to buy from you. But there are no guarantees when you're talking about business or creative ventures. At best, you can go with things that generally wort or things that many people would like most of the time. You can get a basic idea of the difficulty in coming up with a guaranteed winning idea by seeing the spectrum of emotions and threads posted in this very forum. Even in this thread there are varied responses and feelings about the ending.

I just scanned all Bioware-stamped conversation. I find it odd to which treads they jump in. And always when I am sleeping; it is GMT+2, here. So I pick out the post with the most interesting comments before it degraded into some sort of justification ping pong.

My 1st point: Picking on "successful formula": The formula, which has been applied in ME3, is called "Deus ex Machina", as a story technique. I am curious why this formula, or technique, seems still so popular among writers. My take is it provides for an easy way out. Yep, a not very positive impression of mine.

I am curious whether you guys know the Deus Ex Machina games, and the Battlestar Galactica Series. Didn´t these examples of contemporary science fiction (or "art"), or better, the reception of these pieces, prove that it is probably not the best idea to employ this formula, yet again?

My 2nd point: Picking on your comments that you did not play the entire ME-series as a whole. Here in Germany, we had a huge public and political discussion about a book, which led to a infamous CEO of a bank to being kicked (or better "golden handshak´ed"). It was about immigrants and integration.
The german Bundeskanzler commented on it, too, when asked by the press. It can be assumed she had a say in the process of kicking that author, too. When asked, if she had actually read that book , she said "no", she had read a synopsis instead. Can you imagine how the majority of the public and the press reacted to that statement?


Edit: Well, I just discovered I hijacked the topic. The thread is called "We are powerful", and Bioware responded with "yes you are, but please try to stay a bit polite". Oh well. Nevermind.

Modifié par Kailord, 29 mars 2012 - 08:59 .

[Quietness]

Dreogan wrote...

Ashley_82 wrote...

I've read on the other forum that the guys who will be on PAX are Chris Priestly, Mike Gamble, Corey Gaspur, Patrick Weekes, John Dombrow and Reid Buckmaster.

Don't know if it's accurate though.

May God have mercy on their souls. And I hope they have the sense to announce something significant related to the ending fix.

^^

Patrick Weekes is amazing i love his work.

I find it odd that Casey and Mac are no-showing........ well i guess not really now that i think about it.

[HenchxNarf]

Dreogan wrote...

Ashley_82 wrote...

I've read on the other forum that the guys who will be on PAX are Chris Priestly, Mike Gamble, Corey Gaspur, Patrick Weekes, John Dombrow and Reid Buckmaster.

Don't know if it's accurate though.

May God have mercy on their souls. And I hope they have the sense to announce something significant related to the ending fix.

Other than the fact that they aren't fixing the ending. They're explaining and clarifying the ending. That =/= fixing.

[Aweus]

Quietness wrote...

I find it odd that Casey and Mac are no-showing........ well i guess not really now that i think about it.

You dont need Hudson or Walters to make an some announcement regarding ending DLC. If they even planned anything. They stated that they will say more in April which does not imply automatically it will happen on PAX.

[ticklefist]

Dridengx wrote...

Cgrissom wrote...

Hold the Line!

*pic removed*

I see less and less of you holding

So desperate.

[TheGoddess0fWar]

Quietness wrote...

^^

Patrick Weekes is amazing i love his work.

I find it odd that Casey and Mac are no-showing........ well i guess not really now that i think about it.

Not surprised. Not one bit. I'd be scared if I were them too.

[Quietness]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

Ashley_82 wrote...

I've read on the other forum that the guys who will be on PAX are Chris Priestly, Mike Gamble, Corey Gaspur, Patrick Weekes, John Dombrow and Reid Buckmaster.

Don't know if it's accurate though.

May God have mercy on their souls. And I hope they have the sense to announce something significant related to the ending fix.

Other than the fact that they aren't fixing the ending. They're explaining and clarifying the ending. That =/= fixing.

Obligitory picking at your choice of wording to s*** all over your point. Informing that adding any new content does represent a change, notes that you stated fixing as to imply you have finally come to terms with there being something wrong with the ending.

[Aweus]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

Ashley_82 wrote...

I've read on the other forum that the guys who will be on PAX are Chris Priestly, Mike Gamble, Corey Gaspur, Patrick Weekes, John Dombrow and Reid Buckmaster.

Don't know if it's accurate though.

May God have mercy on their souls. And I hope they have the sense to announce something significant related to the ending fix.

Other than the fact that they aren't fixing the ending. They're explaining and clarifying the ending. That =/= fixing.

Why so? Doing anything with the ending already means that some sort of fixing is taking place. Besides, we dont really know what they will do. You dont like people jumping to conclusions then dont do it by yourself first.

[Lietuvis]

Holding the line till the very end!

[HenchxNarf]

Quietness wrote...

Obligitory picking at your choice of wording to s*** all over your point. Informing that adding any new content does represent a change, notes that you stated fixing as to imply you have finally come to terms with there being something wrong with the ending.

But no one said they are adding new content. Clarifying something doesn't equal fixing or adding. I don't know where you got that I said they were fixing anything, or that I said/implied that there was something wrong with the endings. Which there isn't, so you're reaching. And you need to read before leaping.

Modifié par HenchxNarf, 29 mars 2012 - 09:00 .

[HenchxNarf]

Aweus wrote...

Why so? Doing anything with the ending already means that some sort of fixing is taking place. Besides, we dont really know what they will do. You dont like people jumping to conclusions then dont do it by yourself first.

If you read some of Hudson's earlier statements, they said they stick by the writers and they aren't changing the endings, just clarifying/explaining them.

[Aweus]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Aweus wrote...

Why so? Doing anything with the ending already means that some sort of fixing is taking place. Besides, we dont really know what they will do. You dont like people jumping to conclusions then dont do it by yourself first.

If you read some of Hudson's earlier statements, they said they stick by the writers and they aren't changing the endings, just clarifying/explaining them.

And how does this mean they are not fixing the endings?

[HenchxNarf]

Aweus wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

Aweus wrote...

Why so? Doing anything with the ending already means that some sort of fixing is taking place. Besides, we dont really know what they will do. You dont like people jumping to conclusions then dont do it by yourself first.

If you read some of Hudson's earlier statements, they said they stick by the writers and they aren't changing the endings, just clarifying/explaining them.

And how does this mean they are not fixing the endings?

Because they stick by the writers and their ending. Fixing would imply they think something is wrong with them, and they don't think that.

Clarifying/Explaining =/= Fixing

[Quietness]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Quietness wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

Ashley_82 wrote...

I've read on the other forum that the guys who will be on PAX are Chris Priestly, Mike Gamble, Corey Gaspur, Patrick Weekes, John Dombrow and Reid Buckmaster.

Don't know if it's accurate though.

May God have mercy on their souls. And I hope they have the sense to announce something significant related to the ending fix.

Other than the fact that they aren't fixing the ending. They're explaining and clarifying the ending. That =/= fixing.

Obligitory picking at your choice of wording to s*** all over your point. Informing that adding any new content does represent a change, notes that you stated fixing as to imply you have finally come to terms with there being something wrong with the ending.

But no one said they are adding new content. Clarifying something doesn't equal fixing or adding. I don't know where you got that I said they were fixing anything, or that I said/implied that there was something wrong with the endings. Which there isn't, so you're reaching.

Again informs that adding anything to something changes this. Uses a childs drawing to illustrate point. Notes that in picture A timmy has drawn a house. Notes that in picture B timmy has clarified that the house has windows a roof made of clay and a chimney which adds new content to said picture and changes it.

Laughs at your inability to backpedle requotes you stating " 
Other than the fact that they aren't fixing the ending. They're explaining and clarifying the ending. That =/= fixing. ". 

[Little Mama]

 POWER TO THE MASS 

[Aweus]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Because they stick by the writers and their ending. Fixing would imply they think something is wrong with them, and they don't think that.

Clarifying/Explaining =/= Fixing

First of all you are too selective in your word interpretation. Clarification and explanation is also fixing. It would mean they think endings are not properly explained which means there IS something wrong with them. Also as you like to quote things, here is something directly from Ray Muzyka's blog: "game content initiatives". Game content. Which means they will be adding something directly to the game. Even if they rework the current ending and dont change the outcome but only explain better what happened during the ending and/or what happened after (like further closure) it is still a process which you may call FIXING.