158 réponses à ce sujet

[humes spork]

Ratimir wrote...

It seems to me that the reason that there are so few articles posted in support of the original endings is that there are few, if any, that are even remotely objective and intelligent.

No, that's your confirmation bias.

I can tell you as someone who is ultimately ambivalent (read, neutral) towards the endings and has defended aspects of them while granting their otherwise glaring problems and even pointing out a few of my own, that the counterposition does in fact exist and it is cogent. It just happens to be buried under the avalanche of people complaining about the endings, and should it typically warrant any response at all it's typically not a quality response. Otherwise, the signal-to-noise ratio on these forums is absolutely terrible -- on both sides of the equation -- making quality posts opposed to the redundant, counterfactual, illogical, or simply inflammatory ones difficult to find, read, and reply in kind.

I'd be willing to posit many "pro ender" people ultimately feel as I do -- they have already satisfied their burden of proof by making past posts and feel no need to argue with people unwilling to listen, let alone respond in kind or honor the principle of charity. Please, feel more than free to look through my past posts (via the forum's search function) regarding the theme of the ending and the Catalyst and you'll find my defenses in ample number, if only to confirm that I have in fact satisfied my burden of proof.

If you find my arguments unpersuasive, that's certainly your right; though, finding an argument unpersuasive is a different beast than finding an argument illogical or ignorant, and to make a categorical claim about how "pro enders" have not fulfilled their burden of proof is flatly incorrect. Likewise, setting a burden of proof for your opponents that they somehow respond in kind to each and every assertion against them no matter how redundant, unreasonable, pedantic, or counterfactual -- which seems to be the vibe among "well I haven't seen anyone argue for the ending yet" -- is extremely unreasonable and uncharitable, especially when if people go out of their way to satisfy the burden of proof you set in the name of charity it promptly goes ignored at best, and at worst met with a slew of abuse by others.

Modifié par humes spork, 01 avril 2012 - 02:52 .

[leapingmonkeys]

I've made the same point in these forums multiple times - all the BS about art and entitlement that has been going in is nonsense. This is business. The company set expectations for the product which many customers feel were not met. If one wants to remain viable as a business, they have to accept the customer input and alter the product to meet customer expectations. Do it, and you have happy customers and a future as a business. Tell your customers to take a flying leap and you fail as a business. Its really that simple.

History is quite clear on this matter. Quicksilver started arguing with its customer base over Masters Of Orion 3. They started telling their customer base that they knew what made a good game, that the customers didn't have any right to criticize their decisions, etc, etc, etc. Sound familiar? The result? MOO3 was a failure and Quicksilver faded into obscurity. No business can survive telling a significant portion of its customer base that they won't deliver a product which meets their expectations.

[humes spork]

leapingmonkeys wrote...

History is quite clear on this matter. Quicksilver started arguing with its customer base over Masters Of Orion 3. They started telling their customer base that they knew what made a good game, that the customers didn't have any right to criticize their decisions, etc, etc, etc. Sound familiar? The result? MOO3 was a failure and Quicksilver faded into obscurity. No business can survive telling a significant portion of its customer base that they won't deliver a product which meets their expectations.

As a MoO3 owner and someone who played it a lot despite it's faults, I can tell you from personal experience that situation is in no way equivalent. MoO3's problems were technical in nature, opposed to narrative; the game as shipped, due to bad artificial intelligence and numerous programming bugs was a frustrating, unenjoyable mess.

Not as in "the story is so bad you don't want to play it, but you can if you wish" but rather "you spend half your time in the game triaging and repairing the damage your own assistant does to your empire on a turn-by-turn basis, and the on/off flag for said assistant is bugged and you can't actually disable it".

Let me share you my experience in MoO3 that made me throw my hands up and uninstall, for example. I was playing ithkul in a massive game on high difficulty. I did my usual ithkul strategy: eradicate the civilizations I can't eat before they can establish strong diplomatic relations with other civs, build just enough of a military to ward off invasion, then go full-stop economic power with a fully-open trade regime and bribing all the other civs to stay at war with one another so they don't unite against me. Ithkul open trade regime means lots of immigration, which means I have an ample food supply (immigrants) and ithkul emigrants eventually eat a given planet's previous inhabitants, revolt, and rejoin the empire.

In the neighborhood of turn...1200 maybe?...my vizier decided what my empire absolutely, positively had to have were farms. On every world. Especially ones unsuitable for farming. So, it tore down all my shipyards, factories and trade centers and built farms. The ensuing economic chaos sent my empire into a depression, and all the other civilizations withdrew their trade agreements and dogpiled me.

I lost a game I put months into that was in every way panning out to be the most epic victory I'd ever enjoyed in MoO (I'd even eaten the antarans for god's sake), all because of phenomenally bad AI. There's no excuse for programming that bad.

Modifié par humes spork, 01 avril 2012 - 03:26 .

[ed87]

sorentoft wrote...

ed87 wrote...

Forbes needs to slow down with these ME3 articles. If they can thumping them out they will appear to be very biased

I disagree. Is a newspaper necessarily biased because it delivers news about an event as it goes along? No. I think they are just about the only business magazine that gives this any light at all. To be honest I find it very refreshing, even if not all of the points made are accurate at times. Compared to many of the gaming journalists the Forbes journalists actually have an idea of what they are talking about and can remain neutral.

Yes, but keyword in my post is 'appear'

I like all the Forbes articles on this, but unfortunately at the moment there is a divide on whether to change the endings as there is an ongoing argument about the precedent it would set. How it appears to me, is like how it would appear if a newspaper kept coveraging only one party of an election campaign while merely acknowledging the others.

I know Forbes is viewed as objective, but all articles ive read there on ME3 feel biased towards us. Churning out a lot of them makes me feel like theyre ready to donate cupcakes too.

Anyways that was just my gut feeling on that, but of course i do have some basic knowledge on literature

EDIT: Ultimately, i want Forbes on our side and i dont want EA to feel the same thing about them that i do at the moment which is that theyre too much on our side

Modifié par ed87, 01 avril 2012 - 03:10 .

[Xeranx]

ed87 wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

ed87 wrote...

Forbes needs to slow down with these ME3 articles. If they can thumping them out they will appear to be very biased

I disagree. Is a newspaper necessarily biased because it delivers news about an event as it goes along? No. I think they are just about the only business magazine that gives this any light at all. To be honest I find it very refreshing, even if not all of the points made are accurate at times. Compared to many of the gaming journalists the Forbes journalists actually have an idea of what they are talking about and can remain neutral.

Yes, but keyword in my post is 'appear'

I like all the Forbes articles on this, but unfortunately at the moment there is a divide on whether to change the endings as there is an ongoing argument about the precedent it would set. How it appears to me, is like how it would appear if a newspaper kept coveraging only one party of an election campaign while merely acknowledging the others.

I know Forbes is viewed as objective, but all articles ive read there on ME3 feel biased towards us. Churning out a lot of them makes me feel like theyre ready to donate cupcakes too.

Anyways that was just my gut feeling on that, but of course i do have some basic knowledge on literature

EDIT: Ultimately, i want Forbes on our side and i dont want EA to feel the same thing about them that i do at the moment which is that theyre too much on our side

I just want to comment on this as I feel it applies very well.  The journalism that occurs today is not the journalism that used to exist.  When Walter Cronkite can say, "and that's the way it was" you knew he was giving you facts.  He is of an era in journalism that is slowly dying or already dead.  Newspapers today still have editorial sections, but you can read before the editorials sections and you'll get words that encourage people to make inferences with the way they're worded.  If they aren't quoting someone making a statement about how horrible or horrific a situation is, they will put those words in themselves.  It's not responsible journalism.

I said it in repsonse to one of the first articles put linked to that it wasn't in any way professional and this article is the same way.  It is not told in a manner that seems unbiased and the frequency with which this is reported contributes to diminishing any goals set by anyone of the retake movement or this guy from Forbes.

People are championing this while disregarding any post with thought made by the other side.  And they're doing so because the name attached to the blogger is credible, but let's keep in mind that the one talking about this in Forbes is a blogger.  He says it himself.  Blogs, unless they're written differently, are purely places to go for factual information pertaining to what someone thinks about something they've come into contact with.  That's a rhetorical way of saying that blogs are purely opinion pieces.  No different from what any of us are doing right now in this thread or on this board.  Comparing this to even the stories in the "non-editorial" section of the Daily News, it doesn't measure up.  

The article uses examples that have been fully explained on this board already before said articles release.  I believe I mentioned this a few pages ago as well.  If someone wrote a counter to this article hitting the points considered major and giving factual basis for where the information can be looked up, the article and any subsequent articles are forced to face an uphill battle.  They will be discounted unless they present a source that allows for verification.  So when the article writer expresses that they aren't vested in this but use an example right from these boards, I can't help but call him out on it.  And when such an example is used --that's already been discussed and pretty much settled-- I cannot view the article as an objective piece.  It now fits very well in the blogosphere where the writer states he makes his home.  Furthormore, if I can do that, I can completely separate the writers articles from the rest of Forbes publications as I don't imagine it fits in with the methods used to tell a series of events with other Forbes publications.

So this fan that's using his connections to get something going needs to keep in mind what he's doing because if he is for the movement he serves to cripple it completely if he's not careful.  And if he's not for the movement, then he can report as often as he wants, but inadvertently serves to hurt his connection with Forbes.

Modifié par Xeranx, 01 avril 2012 - 03:58 .

[Velocithon]

Home Run!

Touchdown!

SCORE!

w/e.

This article is awesome!

[Gruzmog]

humes spork wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

It seems to me that the reason that there are so few articles posted in support of the original endings is that there are few, if any, that are even remotely objective and intelligent.

No, that's your confirmation bias.

I can tell you as someone who is ultimately ambivalent (read, neutral) towards the endings and has defended aspects of them while granting their otherwise glaring problems and even pointing out a few of my own, that the counterposition does in fact exist and it is cogent. It just happens to be buried under the avalanche of people complaining about the endings, and should it typically warrant any response at all it's typically not a quality response. Otherwise, the signal-to-noise ratio on these forums is absolutely terrible -- on both sides of the equation -- making quality posts opposed to the redundant, counterfactual, illogical, or simply inflammatory ones difficult to find, read, and reply in kind.

I'd be willing to posit many "pro ender" people ultimately feel as I do -- they have already satisfied their burden of proof by making past posts and feel no need to argue with people unwilling to listen, let alone respond in kind or honor the principle of charity. Please, feel more than free to look through my past posts (via the forum's search function) regarding the theme of the ending and the Catalyst and you'll find my defenses in ample number, if only to confirm that I have in fact satisfied my burden of proof.

If you find my arguments unpersuasive, that's certainly your right; though, finding an argument unpersuasive is a different beast than finding an argument illogical or ignorant, and to make a categorical claim about how "pro enders" have not fulfilled their burden of proof is flatly incorrect. Likewise, setting a burden of proof for your opponents that they somehow respond in kind to each and every assertion against them no matter how redundant, unreasonable, pedantic, or counterfactual -- which seems to be the vibe among "well I haven't seen anyone argue for the ending yet" -- is extremely unreasonable and uncharitable, especially when if people go out of their way to satisfy the burden of proof you set in the name of charity it promptly goes ignored at best, and at worst met with a slew of abuse by others.

On these boards you are totally right, good and insightfull posts get buried by people who spit out one-liners don't provide arguments but only say I think so and so etc.

What strikes me as odd though that in third-party articles there seems to be a clear distinction. While the ones that see no problem with changing the ending like forbes did not only provide arguments for their own case but also write and argue against poitns the opposite side makes,

The Pro-ender side , cept for one article I have seen, does not go into the counter arguments given in the best case and in the worst cases (Colin) never gets past the entitled brad argument.

Perhaps I have been missing stuff and then I would love to see links, but this does seem infact onesided to me and no conformation bias.

Modifié par Gruzmog, 01 avril 2012 - 04:11 .

[Xcrucio]

Xeranx wrote...

*trimmed for length

Bravo good sir.  Couldn't have said it better myself.

[humes spork]

Gruzmog wrote...

On these boards you are totally right, good and insightfull posts get buried by people who spit out one-liners don't provide arguments but only say I think so and so etc.

What strikes me as odd though that in third-party articles there seems to be a clear distinction. While the ones that see no problem with changing the ending like forbes did not only provide arguments for their own case but also write and argue against poitns the opposite side makes,

The Pro-ender side , cept for one article I have seen, does not go into the counter arguments given in the best case and in the worst cases (Colin) never gets past the entitled brad argument.

Perhaps I have been missing stuff and then I would love to see links, but this does seem infact onesided to me and no conformation bias.

Well, the thing is the material from Forbes is good, but the bottom line is it is coming almost solely from Kain. That handful of articles from one journalist just happen to be repeated ad infinitum, which gives the illusion the editorializing is much greater in scope than it is. An argument needn't become memetic to be persuasive, but on the other hand rendering an argument memetic does not make it so. It is what it is.

And likewise, for example Ben Croshaw's Extra Punctuation article about the end. People when discussing it focus on the two inflammatory comments he makes (which, undignified barbs for the sake of humor and shock are typical for Croshaw) and completely ignore the rest of it, and the most charitable inference to be made from that is they're merely building straw men. The reality is in the greater context of Croshaw's work, he has little regard for AFGNCAAP's (as Shepard is) and little regard for multiple endings (which he specifically calls out in the article itself), so naturally he is going to have a rather pessimistic opinion of ME3 and the franchise in total (and that pans out in his video reviews of all three games). And, and most importantly, the "choice" presented throughout the trilogy is much smaller in scope and impact than the fanbase makes it to be, and the fans had unreasonably high expectations of ME3 narratively and technically completely apart from claims made by BW.