268 réponses à ce sujet

[JasmoVT]

Hy0ga wrote...

 I think this is just bad writing + rushed work. Or the IT is true. In anycase, I bet Casey laughed hard after saying this; 

As opposed to say Dragon Age Origins where the choices are:
A) You die
Alister dies
C)Neither die

and the ultimat ending in DAO and both awakening and DAII are exactly the same:

After 2 years everyone who matters wanders off and no one knows what happens to them.


RPGs are all about creating the illusion that your choices matter when they actually don't as was said by one of the Dragon Age designers.

[leewells]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson"

^How is this subjective? Your opinion I guess. But I'd rather have a court of law decide that...

'splained in my edit, it still remains a work of fiction which its authors have the right to modify as they see fit after the fact.

He made a specific claim on the nature of the product. And did the exact opposite of said claim. I don't recall anything in Business Law and Advertising law that insulates works of fiction from making false claims on their products (correct me if I'm wrong, however).

You are way off base there..  Any creative works that is issued for retail sale is a "product".  As a "product" for retail, that said product must adhere to its advertising, especailly if it cannot be thoroughly examined before purchase (demo's don't count and generally "examined" consists of test drives and the liking).  Simply put, if you bought a "mystery syfy painting" in a box at wall mart with a picture of an alien on the front, if you got home to discover it was a painting of a WIZARD that was HALF FINISHED you would be at least slightly upset.  And remember, you're not exactly legally able to fully examine a game before you buy it, the same with a book.   My encyclopedia annalogy on the OP is a great refrence point though.

When you take business admin you generally minor in something like accounting or business law.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 03:22 .

[D_Dude1210]

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson"

^How is this subjective? Your opinion I guess. But I'd rather have a court of law decide that...

'splained in my edit, it still remains a work of fiction which its authors have the right to modify as they see fit after the fact.

He made a specific claim on the nature of the product. And did the exact opposite of said claim. I don't recall anything in Business Law and Advertising law that insulates works of fiction from making false claims on their products (correct me if I'm wrong, however).

Well, as I am not from the US, attempting to correct you on this particular law. However, I can tell you that courts will more than usually refrain themselves from things as subjective as evaluations of works of fiction unless it happens in copyright infringement lawsuits. Waaaaaay too many diverging opinions and interpretations possible. What should happen is the court actually rejecting the case because of this.

Hell, Fable creators would be kind of broke by now if that wasn't the case. Game creators need to make games that are playable, mostly bug free and respecting the genre they are advertising as. Anything narrative-wise is often too subjective for them to statute on. It also gets way too close for comfort to freedom of speech.

Also, for the record, (in the province of Quebec Law) it is possible for marketting to be boastfull and enjolivates certain things. It only must not pass a certain threshold. This system is also present in Canadian Common Law provinces, and so, I have no reasons not to believe it is not the case in American Law.  And I, for one, do not believe it passes that threshold. So, for those reasons I do believe that Mass Effect 3 passes the test and that any judge worth a damn should dismiss a case like this.

Again, we need to distinguish between Puffery vs. Making false specific claims about one's product (fraud/false advertising). Also, IMO, unless taken literally to the point of obscenity, the statement itself has very little room for interpretation (and isn't the ONLY incidence of false claims made. In this instance, numerous OTHER counts of false statements made in different other instances may be lumped into the same suit in order to strengthen the argument further). Again, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm a bit rusty here, beena while.

[judge515]

As a third year law student, I have been thinking about this for a very long time in regards to the Day One DLC Disaster. I think that there is a case here.

I truly believe that many of these companies get away with this type of behavior because people would rather not sue over "only $10." But when they do this across the world, they stand to make a lot of money with almost no chance of legitimate law suit.

[D_Dude1210]

@leewalls: heyyy!!! Why quote me and say I'm off base when I'm actually saying what you just said? :-(

[leewells]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson"

^How is this subjective? Your opinion I guess. But I'd rather have a court of law decide that...

'splained in my edit, it still remains a work of fiction which its authors have the right to modify as they see fit after the fact.

He made a specific claim on the nature of the product. And did the exact opposite of said claim. I don't recall anything in Business Law and Advertising law that insulates works of fiction from making false claims on their products (correct me if I'm wrong, however).

Well, as I am not from the US, attempting to correct you on this particular law. However, I can tell you that courts will more than usually refrain themselves from things as subjective as evaluations of works of fiction unless it happens in copyright infringement lawsuits. Waaaaaay too many diverging opinions and interpretations possible. What should happen is the court actually rejecting the case because of this.

Hell, Fable creators would be kind of broke by now if that wasn't the case. Game creators need to make games that are playable, mostly bug free and respecting the genre they are advertising as. Anything narrative-wise is often too subjective for them to statute on. It also gets way too close for comfort to freedom of speech.

Also, for the record, (in the province of Quebec Law) it is possible for marketting to be boastfull and enjolivates certain things. It only must not pass a certain threshold. This system is also present in Canadian Common Law provinces, and so, I have no reasons not to believe it is not the case in American Law.  And I, for one, do not believe it passes that threshold. So, for those reasons I do believe that Mass Effect 3 passes the test and that any judge worth a damn should dismiss a case like this.

Again, we need to distinguish between Puffery vs. Making false specific claims about one's product (fraud/false advertising). Also, IMO, unless taken literally to the point of obscenity, the statement itself has very little room for interpretation (and isn't the ONLY incidence of false claims made. In this instance, numerous OTHER counts of false statements made in different other instances may be lumped into the same suit in order to strengthen the argument further). Again, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm a bit rusty here, beena while.

That sounds accurate... In fact by adding all the claims into one lump can pave the way for proving malace -- very much like proving the "willfully and knowingly" clause in a dishonored check case (I know criminal/civil are two diffrent things).

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 03:31 .

[leewells]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

@leewalls: heyyy!!! Why quote me and say I'm off base when I'm actually saying what you just said? :-(

Bahh sorry I skipped a word that made that sentance look bad and have opposite meaning  My bad.

[Nostradamoose]

Bring me all those false claims and I'll see if I change my tune and sing like a canary

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...

Bring me all those false claims and I'll see if I change my tune and sing like a canary

They've been pepered in this thread all over the place.. lol.

[leewells]

JasmoVT wrote...

Hy0ga wrote...

 I think this is just bad writing + rushed work. Or the IT is true. In anycase, I bet Casey laughed hard after saying this; 

As opposed to say Dragon Age Origins where the choices are:
A) You die
Alister dies
C)Neither die

and the ultimat ending in DAO and both awakening and DAII are exactly the same:

After 2 years everyone who matters wanders off and no one knows what happens to them.


RPGs are all about creating the illusion that your choices matter when they actually don't as was said by one of the Dragon Age designers.

At least the epilogue is diffrent!  And you have to consider that DA:O was a pioneer in this whole dynamic ending RPG stuff so you can't thrash them too hard on that.  DAII yeah, I'm with you -- I challenge anyone to find a worse sequel than that atrocity.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 03:35 .

[Shepard Wins]

inb4lockdown. Never said that one before, sorry, couldn't resist.

[leewells]

Shepard Wins wrote...

inb4lockdown. Never said that one before, sorry, couldn't resist.

Why would it be locked?  No one is making threats, the conversations are remaining civil, there is no flaming, and the conversations are clean... Ummm... This 100% complies with the rules of the forums.. A lock down would be a herrendous "show" from BioWare that they are just very insensitive to the opinions and beliefs of their community.

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...

I completely understand injunctions... but to request or motion for injunctive relief in this state does not generally consist of damages as the nomincalture of the "relief".

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I was using mental shorthand; in the field of law I studied at some length (environmental law, whether I wanted to or not), "injunctive relief" is shorthand for "dollah dollah billz y'all".

People wonder why I have little respect for environmental lawyers.

[Ethalin]

JasmoVT wrote...

Hy0ga wrote...

 I think this is just bad writing + rushed work. Or the IT is true. In anycase, I bet Casey laughed hard after saying this; 

As opposed to say Dragon Age Origins where the choices are:
A) You die
Alister dies
C)Neither die

and the ultimat ending in DAO and both awakening and DAII are exactly the same:

After 2 years everyone who matters wanders off and no one knows what happens to them.


RPGs are all about creating the illusion that your choices matter when they actually don't as was said by one of the Dragon Age designers.

If you have even played Dragon Age Origins before you would know that the ending shows what happens for each of the choices you made throughout the entire game over a dozen screens and for each of your companions. Saying DA:O was an A,B,C ending is hardly fair considering you are just stating live or die (And don't even mention Loghain in that) which is not even meaningful to the ending. You decide many things that effect the outcome and epilogue in DA:O throughout the game. 

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...

leewells wrote...

I completely understand injunctions... but to request or motion for injunctive relief in this state does not generally consist of damages as the nomincalture of the "relief".

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I was using mental shorthand; in the field of law I studied at some length (environmental law, whether I wanted to or not), "injunctive relief" is shorthand for "dollah dollah billz y'all".

People wonder why I have little respect for environmental lawyers.

Yeah no suing McDonalds because you burned yourself in this state HA HA HA.

[tjc2]

The problem with a legal complaint is that if it ever made it to court, it won't, Bioware could easily round up hundreds of people who liked the endings and the game(morons) and parade them in front of the judge.

Case Dismissed.

[leewells]

tjc2 wrote...

The problem with a legal complaint is that if it ever made it to court, it won't, Bioware could easily round up hundreds of people who liked the endings and the game(morons) and parade them in front of the judge.

Case Dismissed.

How would this dismiss a case exactly?  I've never seen anyone's opinion's except that of the judge or expert testimony be entered as evidence or have any bearing on the case's deposition.

The facts are quite clear, the game does not live up to its advertising and by far out of a margin of "grey" and puffery -- there were outright lies made in marketing the game.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 03:43 .

[D_Dude1210]

Nostradamoose wrote...

Bring me all those false claims and I'll see if I change my tune and sing like a canary

There's several LONG and well thought out threads here with the false promises enumerated. :-( it's like 6am where I am! Lol.

[sydranark]

@OP

Wouldn't you require intent or proof that they purposefully tricked consumers in to buying a load of garbage? It's easy to make these claims, as there's a lot of evidence to support it, but there is no absolute proof.

For example, lets say an employer denies you a position because he is racist, and picks someone else who is his race. You can file for racism, and it is evident that he picked someone of his own race over you, but unless you have proof of his intentions, you have no case.

I do believe that we got ripped off. And the fact that they won't give us an ending and will only "clarify" the current plot-holed cliffhanger makes matters worse. But the case isn't strong enough to take to court. Bioware could easily argue that they interpreted the ending as one that suited what was advertised. In this case, they did not intend on bait-switch, they were just stupid and had no idea how to end the series.

[BadlyBrowned]

JasmoVT wrote...

As opposed to say Dragon Age Origins where the choices are:
A) Warden dies
Alister dies
C) Neither dies
and the ultimat ending in DAO and both awakening and DAII are exactly the same:

After 2 years everyone who matters wanders off and no one knows what happens to them.


RPGs are all about creating the illusion that your choices matter when they actually don't as was said by one of the Dragon Age designers.

To be fair, it's:
1) Warden dies
2) Allistair dies
3) Loghain (if not executed) dies
4) No one dies

Then, all your choices up to that point mean more than an arbitrary number at the end:
-Your war assests can actually be called into battle, and what war assests you have access too depends on who you recruited to the army. You actually do see the fruits of your labor and choices in that last battle.
-Your entire party in Dragon Age: Origins visibly participates in the climactic battle, instead of just dissapearing at the very end. DA:O was the first RPG game I've played where I really felt some semblence of fighting within an army, as opposed to ME where it can feel like me and my two squadmembers with our pistols saving the Galaxy on our own. 

Plus, DA:O actually had an epilogue, whilst Mass Effect had a cliffhanger, and to end a trilogy no less. This epilogue varied wildy depending on which Origin story the Warden is from and the choices you made throughout the game. Gee, that sounds almost like what Bioware was promising ME3 would be...

Dragon Age: Origins did an exponentially better job making you think your choices mattered, Mass Effect 3 managed to make you think nothing mattered at all. 

Edit: Spelling 

Modifié par BadlyBrowned, 03 avril 2012 - 03:49 .

[Nostradamoose]

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

Bring me all those false claims and I'll see if I change my tune and sing like a canary

They've been pepered in this thread all over the place.. lol.

Well, so far, there's the ABC thing, the Informer and your opening post.

Close or far-fetched, all of those declarations are quite easily defendable as there is nothing clearly damnable in them apart from the multiplayer.

I'll have to say that the only strong case there would be in something like this would be the multiplayer case.

[Ethalin]

BadlyBrowned wrote...
Dragon Age: Origins did an exponentially better job making you think your choces mattered, Mass Effect 3 managed to make you think nothing mattered at all. 

ME3 Epilogue: "Shepard has become a Legend, now hand over that money to buy more DLC"

[leewells]

sydranark wrote...

@OP

Wouldn't you require intent or proof that they purposefully tricked consumers in to buying a load of garbage? It's easy to make these claims, as there's a lot of evidence to support it, but there is no absolute proof.

For example, lets say an employer denies you a position because he is racist, and picks someone else who is his race. You can file for racism, and it is evident that he picked someone of his own race over you, but unless you have proof of his intentions, you have no case.

I do believe that we got ripped off. And the fact that they won't give us an ending and will only "clarify" the current plot-holed cliffhanger makes matters worse. But the case isn't strong enough to take to court. Bioware could easily argue that they interpreted the ending as one that suited what was advertised. In this case, they did not intend on bait-switch, they were just stupid and had no idea how to end the series.

I was involved (no I was not the defendant ) in a dishonored check case once where the law here stated that the charge was "willfully and knowingly" wrote a bad check.  The case would have been dismissed were it one check that was dishonored, however being the person had already done it before and wrote 3 with my company, he was found guilty.  This is called assumed evidence and it would be the same in any court where it can simply be proven that they did falsely advertise the game (which is fact) by outright lies.  The fact we were told that it could be possible to live happly ever after and that there was no "off switch" for the reapers makes this a moot point.

The employment conundrum:  Once, yes this is very hard to prove, but if you look at his staff to see there ALL <insert race here> you have a pattern which can then be accepted as assumed (pattern) evidence.

The point is, you never know via fact what someone's intentions are, you can always do nothing but assume unless they tell you otherwise, however not every case has a ready-written confession to go along with it, if it did, there would be no use for juries/panels.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 03:52 .

[BadlyBrowned]

Ethalin wrote...

BadlyBrowned wrote...
Dragon Age: Origins did an exponentially better job making you think your choces mattered, Mass Effect 3 managed to make you think nothing mattered at all. 

ME3 Epilogue: "Shepard has become a Legend, now hand over that money to buy more DLC"

Don't remind me, that infuriated me more than anything else about the ending. 

[leewells]

Nostradamoose wrote...

leewells wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

Bring me all those false claims and I'll see if I change my tune and sing like a canary

They've been pepered in this thread all over the place.. lol.

Well, so far, there's the ABC thing, the Informer and your opening post.

Close or far-fetched, all of those declarations are quite easily defendable as there is nothing clearly damnable in them apart from the multiplayer.

I'll have to say that the only strong case there would be in something like this would be the multiplayer case.

They're not defendable because no retractions or corrections were made prior to release and purchase.  You do also know that corporations keep very close track of ANY correspondace they make right?  Its not like they forgot about it, they KNEW it was still there and even now have yet to appologize for it.