529 réponses à ce sujet

[Kilshrek]

Transgirlgamer wrote...
If I understand what I've read here correctly, most people in the writing team didn't know the specifics of the ending. 

I admit though that I don't know if the rumors I have heard are true.  They have a certain ring of truth to me just by how the end comes out of nowhere.

Judging from the story the minimum they needed to know was that 1, It took place on the citadel/crucible, 2, that T.I.M. was indoctrinated
and 3, that the citadel had been moved to be in orbit around earth.  That, as far as I can tell, is the absolute minimum that was needed to be told to give us the story we have up Shepard travels up to the citadel.

It's not so much the writers, as the people who were recruited to play the game, focus testers or whatever they call them these days.

That nobody played through the ending, and sat up, looked at a dev/writer, and say  "Is that the end to the story then?", is asking me to believe that pigs are a reliable way to fly across continents as well.

[Transgirlgamer]

lillitheris wrote...

tybbiesniffer wrote...

This is exactly it.  We simply don't have enough data (or the right data) to draw any accurate conclusions.

We do. Like I said, the numbers are so consistent that even a nonrepresentative sample suggests that at a minimum >50% were dissatisfied.

I don't really see a point in arguing about this unless someone starts talking about the ‘silent majority’ again, though.

Except no-one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single one of those negative opinions is actually one person who has multiple accounts everywhere.  Yes, that's an extreme example, I agree and highly unlikely.  But possible.

Modifié par Transgirlgamer, 07 avril 2012 - 11:41 .

[Ziggeh]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I think that most people have been working under the assumption that Bioware knew the ending wasn't great when they sent the game out and they didn't have time to do anything about it or that it was deliberate so they could release something else.  It takes time to come to terms with something like that not being true.

I can understand them not thinking it was ace. I mean, it's not, so it makes them a bit daft, or too close to it, or something. But deliberate? What kind of plan is that? Surely theres a massive gaping flaw in that? You'd have to be a dribbling moron to think that would work.

[Transgirlgamer]

Kilshrek wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...
If I understand what I've read here correctly, most people in the writing team didn't know the specifics of the ending. 

I admit though that I don't know if the rumors I have heard are true.  They have a certain ring of truth to me just by how the end comes out of nowhere.

Judging from the story the minimum they needed to know was that 1, It took place on the citadel/crucible, 2, that T.I.M. was indoctrinated
and 3, that the citadel had been moved to be in orbit around earth.  That, as far as I can tell, is the absolute minimum that was needed to be told to give us the story we have up Shepard travels up to the citadel.

It's not so much the writers, as the people who were recruited to play the game, focus testers or whatever they call them these days.

That nobody played through the ending, and sat up, looked at a dev/writer, and say  "Is that the end to the story then?", is asking me to believe that pigs are a reliable way to fly across continents as well.

That's a fair point.   I'd forgotten about QA testers, alpha and Beta testers and even reviewers who get advanced copies.  I don't for a second believe that every one who was given an advanced copy was in some way either paid off or threatened to give a good review.

[Transgirlgamer]

Ziggeh wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I think that most people have been working under the assumption that Bioware knew the ending wasn't great when they sent the game out and they didn't have time to do anything about it or that it was deliberate so they could release something else.  It takes time to come to terms with something like that not being true.

I can understand them not thinking it was ace. I mean, it's not, so it makes them a bit daft, or too close to it, or something. But deliberate? What kind of plan is that? Surely theres a massive gaping flaw in that? You'd have to be a dribbling moron to think that would work.

That's what most of the proponents of the indoctrination theory have been saying basically.


And if it had been the case that it was deliberate and it had been done exactly right, which would be hard to do, it could have worked.  But it wasn't and it didn't.

Modifié par Transgirlgamer, 07 avril 2012 - 11:47 .

[Pandaman102]

Ziggeh wrote...

Eh? I'm not sure I understand. You're saying they should have known there was a demand for a better ending before anyone had finished it?

That implies either clarvoyance on our part or that they themselves thought the ending was crap. Now I'll agree that it's wierd that the second isn't true, but given they made it, that shouldn't come as a suprise.

They promised wildly different endings that would be shaped by our every decision and would answer all of our questions, including telling us the consequences of our choices.

They gave us threes similar endings that is determined by an arbitrary number and gave a nonsensical explanation of Reapers but revealed absolutely nothing about the consequences of our other actions.

You hardly need clairvoyance to see the problem before it rears its ugly head.

[cutegigi]

lillitheris wrote...

tybbiesniffer wrote...

This is exactly it.  We simply don't have enough data (or the right data) to draw any accurate conclusions.

We do. Like I said, the numbers are so consistent that even a nonrepresentative sample suggests that at a minimum >50% were dissatisfied.

I don't really see a point in arguing about this unless someone starts talking about the ‘silent majority’ again, though.

its OK. at the end it doesnt even matters.
people will believe things diffrently even when tehre is solid scientific evidence
creationist vs evolutionist comest to mind.

at the end of the day its depends on what EA/bioware choose to see. 2million people can come to their HQ, make a giant bonfire and burn their copy there and they can still see it as something positive. Something along artistic integrity succeseed in envoking fans emotion or something

[cutegigi]

Ziggeh wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I think that most people have been working under the assumption that Bioware knew the ending wasn't great when they sent the game out and they didn't have time to do anything about it or that it was deliberate so they could release something else.  It takes time to come to terms with something like that not being true.

I can understand them not thinking it was ace. I mean, it's not, so it makes them a bit daft, or too close to it, or something. But deliberate? What kind of plan is that? Surely theres a massive gaping flaw in that? You'd have to be a dribbling moron to think that would work.

morons usually think thhemself as the smartest.
thats just the fact of the world.

Modifié par cutegigi, 07 avril 2012 - 11:49 .

[Transgirlgamer]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Eh? I'm not sure I understand. You're saying they should have known there was a demand for a better ending before anyone had finished it?

That implies either clarvoyance on our part or that they themselves thought the ending was crap. Now I'll agree that it's wierd that the second isn't true, but given they made it, that shouldn't come as a suprise.

They promised wildly different endings that would be shaped by our every decision and would answer all of our questions, including telling us the consequences of our choices.

They gave us threes similar endings that is determined by an arbitrary number and gave a nonsensical explanation of Reapers but revealed absolutely nothing about the consequences of our other actions.

You hardly need clairvoyance to see the problem before it rears its ugly head.

I'm asking because I don't know.  Did they actually say wildly different endings?  or just different endings?  because if it was just different endings, that could be true.  There's the three core endings, control, synthesis and destroy, each of which has at least two variations in the cut scenes.  Which are, in a way, shaped by our decisions in that our decisions are what gives us or loses us war assets, which changs which cutscenes we see.

I'm not trying to defend what they did, just saying that they might not have flatly lied to us.

[Ziggeh]

Pandaman102 wrote...
They promised wildly different endings that would be shaped by our every decision and would answer all of our questions, including telling us the consequences of our choices.

They gave us threes similar endings that is determined by an arbitrary number and gave a nonsensical explanation of Reapers but revealed absolutely nothing about the consequences of our other actions.

You hardly need clairvoyance to see the problem before it rears its ugly head.

Leaving aside what consitutes a promise, this implies that they released the game fully aware that people would hate it. Aware that what they'd written, acted, coded and tested was nonsense.  Why would they do that?

[Pandaman102]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I'm asking because I don't know.  Did they actually say wildly different endings?  or just different endings?  because if it was just different endings, that could be true.  There's the three core endings, control, synthesis and destroy, each of which has at least two variations in the cut scenes.  Which are, in a way, shaped by our decisions in that our decisions are what gives us or loses us war assets, which changs which cutscenes we see.

I'm not trying to defend what they did, just saying that they might not have flatly lied to us.

http://xbox360.ign.c.../1055366p2.html

"That actually will be our goal with the whole trilogy. To take all of the things you've done in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 and then just let it go. Let it diverge into wildly different conclusions. That's the real fun of having played Mass Effect 1 and 2 and then going into the third one will be that you've set all of these things in motion and now we can let them diverge. I'm not worried that people will play it and think 'Oh well I missed all of this content that would have been different if I had made other choices' because what that does is make you interested in replaying it. The replay value of Mass Effect 1 was huge, but Mass Effect 2 is much more so and I think it just continues into the conclusion of the trilogy.""

Modifié par Pandaman102, 07 avril 2012 - 11:54 .

[Ziggeh]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I'm asking because I don't know.  Did they actually say wildly different endings?  or just different endings?  because if it was just different endings, that could be true.  There's the three core endings, control, synthesis and destroy, each of which has at least two variations in the cut scenes.  Which are, in a way, shaped by our decisions in that our decisions are what gives us or loses us war assets, which changs which cutscenes we see.

I'm not trying to defend what they did, just saying that they might not have flatly lied to us.

Someone said in an interview (can't recall who) that the endings would not just be "A, B or C". Which is true, they're not, strictly speaking. There are any number of variations, which realistically amount to A, B, or C with some flavour.

They didn't lie, so much as mislead.

[Kilshrek]

Ziggeh wrote...

Leaving aside what consitutes a promise, this implies that they released the game fully aware that people would hate it. Aware that what they'd written, acted, coded and tested was nonsense.  Why would they do that?

On current evidence?

Self congratulatory artistic vision.

[Transgirlgamer]

Pandaman102 wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I'm asking because I don't know.  Did they actually say wildly different endings?  or just different endings?  because if it was just different endings, that could be true.  There's the three core endings, control, synthesis and destroy, each of which has at least two variations in the cut scenes.  Which are, in a way, shaped by our decisions in that our decisions are what gives us or loses us war assets, which changs which cutscenes we see.

I'm not trying to defend what they did, just saying that they might not have flatly lied to us.

http://xbox360.ign.c.../1055366p2.html

"That actually will be our goal with the whole trilogy. To take all of
the things you've done in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 and then just
let it go. Let it diverge into wildly different conclusions. That's the
real fun of having played Mass Effect 1 and 2 and then going into the
third one will be that you've set all of these things in motion and now
we can let them diverge. I'm not worried that people will play it and
think 'Oh well I missed all of this content that would have been
different if I had made other choices' because what that does is make
you interested in replaying it. The replay value of Mass Effect 1 was
huge, but Mass Effect 2 is much more so and I think it just continues
into the conclusion of the trilogy.""

Okay.  That's cleared it up for me, thank you.  They did lie about wildly different endings.  I can't see any way to make what we have it those words.

Next question, is the person quoted someone who would definatly know what the ending contained?  Or is it possible that someone else told them something and they're repeating what they've been told?

[Transgirlgamer]

Ziggeh wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I'm asking because I don't know.  Did they actually say wildly different endings?  or just different endings?  because if it was just different endings, that could be true.  There's the three core endings, control, synthesis and destroy, each of which has at least two variations in the cut scenes.  Which are, in a way, shaped by our decisions in that our decisions are what gives us or loses us war assets, which changs which cutscenes we see.

I'm not trying to defend what they did, just saying that they might not have flatly lied to us.

Someone said in an interview (can't recall who) that the endings would not just be "A, B or C". Which is true, they're not, strictly speaking. There are any number of variations, which realistically amount to A, B, or C with some flavour.

They didn't lie, so much as mislead.

I wouldn't ever deny that they mislead us.  I hadn't read much going in about ME3 but what I had read implied more than what we got.

[Peranor]

Wow, I've got to hand it to BioWare. They know how to stir up the same sh*tstorm over and over again
Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in

Modifié par anorling, 07 avril 2012 - 12:00 .

[cutegigi]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Pandaman102 wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I'm asking because I don't know.  Did they actually say wildly different endings?  or just different endings?  because if it was just different endings, that could be true.  There's the three core endings, control, synthesis and destroy, each of which has at least two variations in the cut scenes.  Which are, in a way, shaped by our decisions in that our decisions are what gives us or loses us war assets, which changs which cutscenes we see.

I'm not trying to defend what they did, just saying that they might not have flatly lied to us.

http://xbox360.ign.c.../1055366p2.html

"That actually will be our goal with the whole trilogy. To take all of
the things you've done in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 and then just
let it go. Let it diverge into wildly different conclusions. That's the
real fun of having played Mass Effect 1 and 2 and then going into the
third one will be that you've set all of these things in motion and now
we can let them diverge. I'm not worried that people will play it and
think 'Oh well I missed all of this content that would have been
different if I had made other choices' because what that does is make
you interested in replaying it. The replay value of Mass Effect 1 was
huge, but Mass Effect 2 is much more so and I think it just continues
into the conclusion of the trilogy.""

Okay.  That's cleared it up for me, thank you.  They did lie about wildly different endings.  I can't see any way to make what we have it those words.

Next question, is the person quoted someone who would definatly know what the ending contained?  Or is it possible that someone else told them something and they're repeating what they've been told?

could you at least read the article.
that was casey. How much he know abot ME?
you decide.

Modifié par cutegigi, 07 avril 2012 - 12:01 .

[Pandaman102]

Ziggeh wrote...

Leaving aside what consitutes a promise, this implies that they released the game fully aware that people would hate it. Aware that what they'd written, acted, coded and tested was nonsense.  Why would they do that?

I don't want to speculate on what they thought, but the fact is they did make a lot of claims in the interviews and sales pitches of the game over the years, and the ones regarding the ending simply weren't met. The only people who can answer what happened is Bioware.

[pjotroos]

People that didn't play and haven't seen the ending probably bought "we didn't know". They're the ones this bit was adressed to, not us.

[Hospitallar]

(flashlight head palm)

[cutegigi]

pjotroos wrote...

People that didn't play and haven't seen the ending probably bought "we didn't know". They're the ones this bit was adressed to, not us.

hemm...make sense.
clearing the shelves and all that.

[Pandaman102]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Okay.  That's cleared it up for me, thank you.  They did lie about wildly different endings.  I can't see any way to make what we have it those words.

Next question, is the person quoted someone who would definatly know what the ending contained?  Or is it possible that someone else told them something and they're repeating what they've been told?

That was Casey Hudson speaking and... theoretically he should know, being the director. If he didn't then that implies something very terrible about Bioware's internal communications.

[alienatedflea]

sfam wrote...

 Dear Bioware, you know there is nobody on this earth who believes that, right?  You developed a game with intense interaction between the characters, and previously had lots of cut scenes about what happened to everyone - an actual denouement so to speak, but now you're "Shocked! Shocked!" that people would have wanted a comprehensive ending to the third game?

All your pre-release stuff indicated more of a capstone ending to the series, and we don't get anything about any of the races we've worked, nor much of anything about our ship mates.

And you didn't know?


Again, nobody buys that.  Your statement at PAX today makes it sound far more likely that you actually thought you could get people to pay for a final ending as a DLC.  I hadn't really believed that until now.

Again - the whole star child thing is a travesty, but I would have expected some wierd defense of this, not, you were shocked that your fans, who you clearly understood perfectly up until the last 5 minutes, would have actually wanted to know what happened to all the things they had spent the past 30+ hours working on.

Care to try again? 

Now what does this have to do with the story or campaign of Mass Effect 3? STOP CLITTERING THESE FORUMS WITH THIS CRAP!!! Thanks, have a good day!

[Ziggeh]

Pandaman102 wrote...
I don't want to speculate on what they thought, but the fact is they did make a lot of claims in the interviews and sales pitches of the game over the years, and the ones regarding the ending simply weren't met. The only people who can answer what happened is Bioware.

I think a lot of them were met, just not to anything like the standard we'd like, but I'm not sure that's important to my point: In order for them to have known there would be demand we have to assume that they themselves believed they were releasing an ending that wasn't acceptable. That they intentionally sabotaged their own reputation.

[Pandaman102]

alienatedflea wrote...

Now what does this have to do with the story or campaign of Mass Effect 3? STOP CLITTERING THESE FORUMS WITH THIS CRAP!!! Thanks, have a good day!

I'm afraid your objection was lost in the humorously embarrasing typo.