334 réponses à ce sujet

[Njald]

-Area51-Silent wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Official EA/Bioware stance:

-snip-

Damien Hirsts shark cut up into three peices. Still made millions.

Doesn't have to make sense 'to you' in order for it to be very profitable and successful.

A 14-foot (4.3 m) tiger shark immersed in formaldehyde in a vitrine (clear display case) became the iconic work of British art in the 1990s, and the symbol of Britart worldwide.

You are correct in some sense. In order for somthing like that to be successful and profitable, it has to be 1 of a kind! meaning if the artist was just able to mass produce them, the value would hit the toilet faster than a college freshmen at their first party.

My point is, when it comes to art, being abstract and "dark" is fine, and usually does well in particular, non consumer based settings. The artist is expressing themselves and through that, they are able to convey to the passive observer, what they are feeling. Art is SUPPOSED to be viewed by a PASSIVE observer, not an active participant (thus my argument of game mechanics not being art, but games being made up of art).

Mass Effect's story is art, in a sense because its all written, and the only influence we have is what parts of it we hear. The problem is that art is supposed to follow convensions in order to flow and not interrupt the observers view. When you set out to do a piece and in part of it you violate the convensions you've agreed to for most of the piece, then there is a jarring experience that is experienced by the observer. At the end of Mass Effect 3, we have such an experience because of the story plays out, the introduction of a new character with no warning, and a single endng that could not possibly make sense for all the various paths the observer has chosen to take in the story, meaning that each path should have a variation on the ending, and that variation should be reflective of the other portions of the story they experienced. Having a single experience at the end with very slight variations simply is off putting to the observer.

Why is that not true for everyone? if you didn't make a lot of decisions (in the prior 2 games) then your choices and paths are resolved as you play, and the ending makes sense because of that. With all the closure you need contained in the (lets say third book) of the series, no harm no foul. That cannot be said when you've woven this path in the prior 2 games, and there are unresolved issues lingering that simply need resolving.

The best analogy would be if you only played the 3rd game, its like looking at a piece of art, and that art was all done the same way, so it makes perfect sense! you can't see the other 2/3's of it, so the 1/3 you see flows properly based on your experience with the other unknowns. Then those who've played the other games, the more of the other games you played, the more exposure you have to the old style of art! so if you played 2/3's of it and not the first game, then its still jarring, but the painting can still be seen as OK because you didn't get used to it.

To tie it back to Hirst and the shark: If Hirst released his Shark as "minature Sharks for your office!" And you would buy them in the order Mouth, Middle and Fin (pun intended). Y were one of the millions ordering it and you got two beautifully crafted 6 inch plastic cubes with minautre Sharks cut up exactly like the big one and then when you opened the thrid it was a snowglobe featuring a miniature Santa Shop then you would also ask Hirst himself "W*t*f?".  
One thing was promised, another delivered. No amount of art argument will save that. 
Then people like Dragoonbloodz have the guts to show up with the fine print and argue that "technically the Fin of the shark is never promised to be seen so it might be inside the Santa hut in your snowglobe" 

And they wonder why we are fed up.

Modifié par Njald, 12 avril 2012 - 08:11 .

[Transgirlgamer]

@Dreamtension, could you edit that so that it's more readable please?

[Dragoonlordz]

-Area51-Silent wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Official EA/Bioware stance:

-snip-

-snip-

Damien Hirsts shark cut up into three peices. Still made millions.

Doesn't have to make sense 'to you' in order for it to be very profitable and successful.

A 14-foot (4.3 m) tiger shark immersed in formaldehyde in a vitrine (clear display case) became the iconic work of British art in the 1990s, and the symbol of Britart worldwide.

You are correct in some sense. In order for somthing like that to be successful and profitable, it has to be 1 of a kind! meaning if the artist was just able to mass produce them, the value would hit the toilet faster than a college freshmen at their first party.

My point is, when it comes to art, being abstract and "dark" is fine, and usually does well in particular, non consumer based settings. The artist is expressing themselves and through that, they are able to convey to the passive observer, what they are feeling. Art is SUPPOSED to be viewed by a PASSIVE observer, not an active participant (thus my argument of game mechanics not being art, but games being made up of art).

Mass Effect's story is art, in a sense because its all written, and the only influence we have is what parts of it we hear. The problem is that art is supposed to follow convensions in order to flow and not interrupt the observers view. When you set out to do a piece and in part of it you violate the convensions you've agreed to for most of the piece, then there is a jarring experience that is experienced by the observer. At the end of Mass Effect 3, we have such an experience because of the story plays out, the introduction of a new character with no warning, and a single endng that could not possibly make sense for all the various paths the observer has chosen to take in the story, meaning that each path should have a variation on the ending, and that variation should be reflective of the other portions of the story they experienced. Having a single experience at the end with very slight variations simply is off putting to the observer.

Why is that not true for everyone? if you didn't make a lot of decisions (in the prior 2 games) then your choices and paths are resolved as you play, and the ending makes sense because of that. With all the closure you need contained in the (lets say third book) of the series, no harm no foul. That cannot be said when you've woven this path in the prior 2 games, and there are unresolved issues lingering that simply need resolving.

The best analogy would be if you only played the 3rd game, its like looking at a piece of art, and that art was all done the same way, so it makes perfect sense! you can't see the other 2/3's of it, so the 1/3 you see flows properly based on your experience with the other unknowns. Then those who've played the other games, the more of the other games you played, the more exposure you have to the old style of art! so if you played 2/3's of it and not the first game, then its still jarring, but the painting can still be seen as OK because you didn't get used to it.

You would be right in sense but the difference is because mass produced, it cannot cater to individual tastes. From that point on you have a choice of either relying on the creators intent about the title they chose to make or you force metagaming principles of which would mean more focus on MP and less focus on RPG elements since that is in reality what most of the gaming public want. Out of the two I prefer the former not the later, thanks.

[rbrown81]

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

Stanley, I don't think thats the point.

Its post game feedback. Which, if you value your customers opinions as much as you say you do, would be invaluable to your team for future development.

By saying that we can only assume that BioWare, or maybe its just you, don't take the player feedback seriously enough to give it merit. 

Modifié par rbrown81, 12 avril 2012 - 08:12 .

[DreamTension]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

@Dreamtension, could you edit that so that it's more readable please?

Sorry about that.  Copy and Paste sometimes results in that.

Is it fixed?

[Transgirlgamer]

Ownedbacon wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

(snip due to size)

Maybe the catalyst's programmes only interact together to create it when the crucible is linked to the citadel.  As far as we know, the crucible could have been designed by the same race who designed and built the citadel and the reapers.  It could have never actually been completed and docked to the citadel before, and we know from what the catalyst tells us, that no-one has stood where Shepard has before.

The catalyst, once the programs make it come into being, then has control over the reapers, before that it doesn't exist as a unique entity so it doesn't control the reapers at all.  Sovreign exists to signal when the organic races reach the correct level of technological development to set the harvest in motion and thus continue the cycle, whilst the Catalyst's sole reason for existing could be to be there, present the choice and change/end the cycle.

I don't recall the catalyst ever saying that it created the reapers, but I could be wrong there, and if I am, I will try to come up with another hypothesis that fits what we know.

Shepard: I need to stop the Reapers do you know how I can do that?
The Catalyst: Perhaps, I control the Reapers. They are my solution.
Shepard: Solution to what?
Catalyst: Chaos.

It still doesn't say created though.  I admit it implies it, but all that is confirmed is that the catalyst controls the reapers.

However, maybe part of what makes up the catalyst is a simulation of it's creator which is what gives it the ability to reason and respond to what you say.  Or maybe the catalyst is the creator of the reapers, and isolating it from the systems is part of what the protheans did to change the citadel.  Which, I beleive is essentially what someone suggested earlier.  Does anyone know if a reaper was left behind every cycle?  That could just be the reapers answer to the problem of the catalyst not being there anymore and somehow the crucible being docked freed it.

I think Vigil on Ilos states that a reaper is left behind during each cycle.
Part 1


Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h__n-kgRJEw&feature=relmfu

Long conversation watching them again.

Sovereign only docked at the Citadel because the signal falied. Had other things like the Catalyst had failed to operate prior to this cycle the Reapers would have known and probably attempted to free it.

"They are alien unknowable perhaps they need slaves or resources. More likely they are driven by motives and goals organic beings cannot hope to understand." LOL

"In the end what does it matter your survival depends on stopping them... not in understanding them."

I was suggesting that the catalyst did only fail this cycle, the protheans were taken by surprise and only modified the citadel later if I remember correctly.  But if a reaper is left behind every cycle then my hypothesis of Sovreign being their answer to that doesn't fit anyway.  Plus they wouldn't know that it wouldn't work, unless they'd checked the citadel and then decided that they couldn't undo what the protheans had done.

Maybe either I was right about the crucible not being the reapers creator or another theory (that I've just come up with) is that the reaper left behind was a backup plan.  Like the Alpha relay was the back up plan to the citadel.

[Dragoonlordz]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You might feel like they misdirected you, you use the extreme phrase 'lied' when for almost all quotes used to attack them was prior to release meaning still in development stage. A stage I consider to be open to adjustment and change in direction until hits gold status and the shelves. I listen to what the game contains after release for almost every single game and do not preorder games often. The only reason I preordered this time is because regardless of whether I enjoy it or not, it was part of the trilogy and continued a previous story. If I never enjoyed  it I would of sold it and bought something else like an adult does. Not whined about it for month demanding changed and rewritten. I would leave feedback and then discuss from that point on what would like in the "next" title not alterations to the previous one.

Casey Hudson said AFTER ME3 went gold that there were "countless" endings and that it wouldn't come down to a choice between A, B and C.
And your assertions that anyone who wants Bioware to live up to their promises or even just wants a better end to the trilogy is somehow childish is not doing you any favors. It just shows that you're too childish to accept that your opinion is not any more important than anyone else's.

If used word countless, you claim lied, sorry but impossible to make countless unless you cannot count in which case 2 endings is countless so it is you taking things to literal. It is not up for debate what they choose to do because they have chosen already, the problem lays in the fact your in a state of pretending they never made their choice. Something you need to wake up to and realise after weeks of telling you what they are doing and made official statements which match this of late, you still are in denial about what it is your going to get from them.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 08:17 .

[Transgirlgamer]

DreamTension wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

@Dreamtension, could you edit that so that it's more readable please?

Sorry about that.  Copy and Paste sometimes results in that.

Is it fixed?

Much better, thank you.

[jumpingkaede]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Zeppex wrote...

Well then why ask for player feedback at all? Why makes statements that literally state we created something with you.

Then make other statements like, we didn't know there was a demand for it.

If you tell give me feedback on what we can do better, the people giving you that feedback will generally believe that you will take that into consideration. Unless your just asking to make them feel important,

Yes, but some people interpret "please give us feedback"n as "tell us what to do and we'll for sure do it." Some people believe "I disagree with what you did" is shorthand for "you have to fix things to my specification." And some believe "I suggest this" to be the same as "AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!" This is where discussions start to break down and why so many unproductive arguments happen in the community.

I don't have the numbers obviously, and you can disagree with me if you do, but my take is that complaints about ME3's ending breakdown somewhere along the following lines (in order of priority/dissatisfaction):

1.  Catalyst/AI Star Kid.
2.  Priority Earth/No boss.
3.  No option for paragon/perfect endings.
4.  No closure.

That's been the feedback.  What's the response?  Well, if the Extended DLC FAQ is any indication, it's:

1.  We're keeping the Catalyst/AI Star Kid.
2.  No additional gameplay.
3.  No new endings.
4.  Closure via cutscenes.

There's a disconnect here that goes beyond your interpretation of fan feedback as entitled orders.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 12 avril 2012 - 08:20 .

[Malanek]

You know, I think they have got the message about the ending. I can't see how a survey in game would have unveiled any extra info. What I am more curious about is whether the ending was tested for fan feedback before it went went gold. I mean even getting the DA or SWOTR team who were unaffiliated with the development, and staff members families to play through would have been useful. I'm just surprised that ending made it into the realeased prodcut. 

[TheAwesomologist]

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

No but this may help you at least get a better idea of how your ending was recieved by players who don't come online to voice their opinions. I have friends who hate the ending while a few others are indiferent (ie it wasn't great but they've don't care enough and have moved on to the next game).

Just because you take a poll doesn't mean you have to change anything. You guys already said you weren't going to change anything really, just add more info. You're already collecting other info from our game play, what's a little more? Besides it'll let you guys add more text to the "Buy more DLC" box at the end of the game after the credits.

Just seems like a win/win. You guys can claim to be listening by soliciting direct feedback. Players who don't normally voice their opinion may do so without having to come to the forums. And it gives the feeling of direct interaction with the developer whether or not you take any action with the data or not.

[JKA_Nozyspy]

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

The developer-player relationshp works like this: you give us what we expect, we keep you in business.

That might sound arrogant on the face of it, but thats how businesses work.

If i bought a car and it came without headlights or bumpers, i would send it back and expect the manufacturer to fix it. The fact that so many car companies go out of business due to doing what they want and not giving what the customers want illustrates the point.  Making a great 'artistic statement' has contributed to some car companies going bust, just look at the MG SV.

Biowares games are as close to an art form as i have ever seen in gaming, but you are a business, you are not 'artists'. You dont do what you do for enjoyment and then just sell the results to people who like it, your job is to provide a product that satisfies your customers.

Mass Effect 3 was magnificent, as were the previous two games, but the ending? You just delivered me a car without any wheels and i expect you to fix the problem. And no, saying that not including any wheels with your car was an 'artistic choice' is not acceptable.

Bioware, i still love you guys, but you dont make it easy sometimes...

[Dragoonlordz]

TheAwesomologist wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

No but this may help you at least get a better idea of how your ending was recieved by players who don't come online to voice their opinions. I have friends who hate the ending while a few others are indiferent (ie it wasn't great but they've don't care enough and have moved on to the next game).

Just because you take a poll doesn't mean you have to change anything. You guys already said you weren't going to change anything really, just add more info. You're already collecting other info from our game play, what's a little more? Besides it'll let you guys add more text to the "Buy more DLC" box at the end of the game after the credits.

Just seems like a win/win. You guys can claim to be listening by soliciting direct feedback. Players who don't normally voice their opinion may do so without having to come to the forums. And it gives the feeling of direct interaction with the developer whether or not you take any action with the data or not.

It's not a win situation at all though of which I explained here.

A poll would serve only one purpose which is if goes in these fans favor they will use it as ammunition against the developer, if goes against them then they will dismiss it and scream and shout that EA paid off someone; somewhere. The incentive to do a public poll does not exist when it is a no win situation for them. If they did a poll not made public that also would go against them from tin foil hat brigade. Like said no incentive to do it.

This is the reailty of it, it has been proven over and over, especially in past few weeks.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 08:27 .

[TheAwesomologist]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

TheAwesomologist wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

No but this may help you at least get a better idea of how your ending was recieved by players who don't come online to voice their opinions. I have friends who hate the ending while a few others are indiferent (ie it wasn't great but they've don't care enough and have moved on to the next game).

Just because you take a poll doesn't mean you have to change anything. You guys already said you weren't going to change anything really, just add more info. You're already collecting other info from our game play, what's a little more? Besides it'll let you guys add more text to the "Buy more DLC" box at the end of the game after the credits.

Just seems like a win/win. You guys can claim to be listening by soliciting direct feedback. Players who don't normally voice their opinion may do so without having to come to the forums. And it gives the feeling of direct interaction with the developer whether or not you take any action with the data or not.

It's not a win situation at all though of which I explained here.

A poll would serve only one purpose which is if goes in these fans favor they will use it as ammunition against the developer, if goes against them then they will dismiss it and scream and shout that EA paid off someone; somewhere. The incentive to do a public poll does not exist when it is a no win situation for them. If they did a poll not made public that also would go against them from tin foil hat brigade. Like said no incentive to do it.

Who said they have to go public with the data? As it they're collecting data as to what gender and class our Shepards are. How many hours are being played. What people are making for choices. They don't have to reveal any of it. They only revealed some of the ME2 data last May I believe, over a year after the game came out. I'm sure they didn't reveal all their collected data either.

[Dragoonlordz]

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

The developer-player relationshp works like this: you give us what we expect, we keep you in business.

That might sound arrogant on the face of it, but thats how businesses work.

If i bought a car and it came without headlights or bumpers, i would send it back and expect the manufacturer to fix it. The fact that so many car companies go out of business due to doing what they want and not giving what the customers want illustrates the point.  Making a great 'artistic statement' has contributed to some car companies going bust, just look at the MG SV.

Biowares games are as close to an art form as i have ever seen in gaming, but you are a business, you are not 'artists'. You dont do what you do for enjoyment and then just sell the results to people who like it, your job is to provide a product that satisfies your customers.

Mass Effect 3 was magnificent, as were the previous two games, but the ending? You just delivered me a car without any wheels and i expect you to fix the problem. And no, saying that not including any wheels with your car was an 'artistic choice' is not acceptable.

Bioware, i still love you guys, but you dont make it easy sometimes...

They will still be in business and still making large amounts even if do not change the ending.

I bet is more profitable if they do not allocate vast resources and time into rewriting it. Many of the people who claim if do not change they won't buy their products are huff and puff, this has already been proven. Many make the claim hardly any follow through and most will still buy their titles in future. You can blame yourselves for that because so many of you used huff and puff then never followed through in the past that you lost credability in that department by your own actions.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 08:35 .

[Dragoonlordz]

TheAwesomologist wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

TheAwesomologist wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

No but this may help you at least get a better idea of how your ending was recieved by players who don't come online to voice their opinions. I have friends who hate the ending while a few others are indiferent (ie it wasn't great but they've don't care enough and have moved on to the next game).

Just because you take a poll doesn't mean you have to change anything. You guys already said you weren't going to change anything really, just add more info. You're already collecting other info from our game play, what's a little more? Besides it'll let you guys add more text to the "Buy more DLC" box at the end of the game after the credits.

Just seems like a win/win. You guys can claim to be listening by soliciting direct feedback. Players who don't normally voice their opinion may do so without having to come to the forums. And it gives the feeling of direct interaction with the developer whether or not you take any action with the data or not.

It's not a win situation at all though of which I explained here.

A poll would serve only one purpose which is if goes in these fans favor they will use it as ammunition against the developer, if goes against them then they will dismiss it and scream and shout that EA paid off someone; somewhere. The incentive to do a public poll does not exist when it is a no win situation for them. If they did a poll not made public that also would go against them from tin foil hat brigade. Like said no incentive to do it.

Who said they have to go public with the data? As it they're collecting data as to what gender and class our Shepards are. How many hours are being played. What people are making for choices. They don't have to reveal any of it. They only revealed some of the ME2 data last May I believe, over a year after the game came out. I'm sure they didn't reveal all their collected data either.

If they did not reveal it many of the people here would be screaming out that is because of x, y or z. That it either did not agree with Bioware else would of published it or that there is some conspiracy. Like said it's a no win situation for them so why do it. The mentality of this fanbase would attack them regardless. They have been listening, they took note of all the issues people have but it is their choice how to address it. They made that choice already, some people just refuse to accept the choice was made.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 08:37 .

[Transgirlgamer]

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

The developer-player relationshp works like this: you give us what we expect, we keep you in business.

That might sound arrogant on the face of it, but thats how businesses work.

If i bought a car and it came without headlights or bumpers, i would send it back and expect the manufacturer to fix it. The fact that so many car companies go out of business due to doing what they want and not giving what the customers want illustrates the point.  Making a great 'artistic statement' has contributed to some car companies going bust, just look at the MG SV.

Biowares games are as close to an art form as i have ever seen in gaming, but you are a business, you are not 'artists'. You dont do what you do for enjoyment and then just sell the results to people who like it, your job is to provide a product that satisfies your customers.

Mass Effect 3 was magnificent, as were the previous two games, but the ending? You just delivered me a car without any wheels and i expect you to fix the problem. And no, saying that not including any wheels with your car was an 'artistic choice' is not acceptable.

Bioware, i still love you guys, but you dont make it easy sometimes...

I'm sorry, but they didn't give you the equivalent of a car with no headlights, bumpers or wheels.  They gave you a complete car on which you didn't like the headlights, bumper or wheels.

ME3 has a beginning, a middle and an end.  It is a full story.  Just because people don't like the end doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


EDIT.  But something like a car is a bad analogy for a game anyway.  A car you know what will be in it before you pay for it.  With a game, any game, you may know the basic plot and some of the universe, but you don't get to know everything about it before you buy it.

Modifié par Transgirlgamer, 12 avril 2012 - 08:36 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

The developer-player relationshp works like this: you give us what we expect, we keep you in business.

That might sound arrogant on the face of it, but thats how businesses work.

If i bought a car and it came without headlights or bumpers, i would send it back and expect the manufacturer to fix it. The fact that so many car companies go out of business due to doing what they want and not giving what the customers want illustrates the point.  Making a great 'artistic statement' has contributed to some car companies going bust, just look at the MG SV.

Biowares games are as close to an art form as i have ever seen in gaming, but you are a business, you are not 'artists'. You dont do what you do for enjoyment and then just sell the results to people who like it, your job is to provide a product that satisfies your customers.

Mass Effect 3 was magnificent, as were the previous two games, but the ending? You just delivered me a car without any wheels and i expect you to fix the problem. And no, saying that not including any wheels with your car was an 'artistic choice' is not acceptable.

Bioware, i still love you guys, but you dont make it easy sometimes...

I'm sorry, but they didn't give you the equivalent of a car with no headlights, bumpers or wheels.  They gave you a complete car on which you didn't like the headlights, bumper or wheels.

ME3 has a beginning, a middle and an end.  It is a full story.  Just because people don't like the end doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Correct, I agree. People are to prone to hyperbole to somehow make their stances have more weight but it is in fact not backed up by the reality of the situation presented.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 08:36 .

[Ownedbacon]

[quote]Transgirlgamer wrote...

[quote]Ownedbacon wrote...

[quote]Transgirlgamer wrote...

[quote]Ownedbacon wrote...

[quote]Transgirlgamer wrote...

(snip due to size)
[/quote]
[quote]
snip
[/quote]

I think Vigil on Ilos states that a reaper is left behind during each cycle.
Part 1


Part 2


Long conversation watching them again.

Sovereign only docked at the Citadel because the signal falied. Had other things like the Catalyst had failed to operate prior to this cycle the Reapers would have known and probably attempted to free it.

"They are alien unknowable perhaps they need slaves or resources. More likely they are driven by motives and goals organic beings cannot hope to understand." LOL

"In the end what does it matter your survival depends on stopping them... not in understanding them."

[/quote]

I was suggesting that the catalyst did only fail this cycle, the protheans were taken by surprise and only modified the citadel later if I remember correctly.  But if a reaper is left behind every cycle then my hypothesis of Sovreign being their answer to that doesn't fit anyway.  Plus they wouldn't know that it wouldn't work, unless they'd checked the citadel and then decided that they couldn't undo what the protheans had done.

Maybe either I was right about the crucible not being the reapers creator or another theory (that I've just come up with) is that the reaper left behind was a backup plan.  Like the Alpha relay was the back up plan to the citadel.

[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MIpsejZRq0&t=9m0s

This is the part where Vigil talks about the keepers, Prothean sabotage, Sovereign's failed signal.

[DreamTension]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

The developer-player relationshp works like this: you give us what we expect, we keep you in business.

That might sound arrogant on the face of it, but thats how businesses work.

If i bought a car and it came without headlights or bumpers, i would send it back and expect the manufacturer to fix it. The fact that so many car companies go out of business due to doing what they want and not giving what the customers want illustrates the point.  Making a great 'artistic statement' has contributed to some car companies going bust, just look at the MG SV.

Biowares games are as close to an art form as i have ever seen in gaming, but you are a business, you are not 'artists'. You dont do what you do for enjoyment and then just sell the results to people who like it, your job is to provide a product that satisfies your customers.

Mass Effect 3 was magnificent, as were the previous two games, but the ending? You just delivered me a car without any wheels and i expect you to fix the problem. And no, saying that not including any wheels with your car was an 'artistic choice' is not acceptable.

Bioware, i still love you guys, but you dont make it easy sometimes...

I'm sorry, but they didn't give you the equivalent of a car with no headlights, bumpers or wheels.  They gave you a complete car on which you didn't like the headlights, bumper or wheels.

ME3 has a beginning, a middle and an end.  It is a full story.  Just because people don't like the end doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It has nothing to do with not liking the ending.  Seriously, do people still not realize what the issues are?  Or are people continuing to avoid the issues?  Here's a pretty good version

To use the car analogy: it's a complete car, but after driving it off the lot you find out there are missing pieces.  Still drives from point a to point b, just doesn't do it the way you were told by the sales person.

Modifié par DreamTension, 12 avril 2012 - 08:39 .

[Almostfaceman]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

JKA_Nozyspy wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

The developer-player relationshp works like this: you give us what we expect, we keep you in business.

That might sound arrogant on the face of it, but thats how businesses work.

If i bought a car and it came without headlights or bumpers, i would send it back and expect the manufacturer to fix it. The fact that so many car companies go out of business due to doing what they want and not giving what the customers want illustrates the point.  Making a great 'artistic statement' has contributed to some car companies going bust, just look at the MG SV.

Biowares games are as close to an art form as i have ever seen in gaming, but you are a business, you are not 'artists'. You dont do what you do for enjoyment and then just sell the results to people who like it, your job is to provide a product that satisfies your customers.

Mass Effect 3 was magnificent, as were the previous two games, but the ending? You just delivered me a car without any wheels and i expect you to fix the problem. And no, saying that not including any wheels with your car was an 'artistic choice' is not acceptable.

Bioware, i still love you guys, but you dont make it easy sometimes...

They will still be in business and still making large amounts even if do not change the ending.

I'm not sure why you're inserting yourself in this conversation between customer and company. Say I walk into Toys R  Us to take back a toy that didn't do what it was supposed to do and I'm sitting at the counter talking to the clerk. You're like a second customer standing at the same counter telling me that I shouldn't be taking my toy back. The dynamic just doesn't work. If you're a satisfied customer, fine. Don't stand at the counter with the unsatisfied customers.

I worked in a company that did work for other companies like Microsoft, Sun, Avnet,etc. Big, giant companies. What did I do? My job was to get inside their customers heads and get - wait for it - feedback. That's right. The truth is, major companies are always taking surveys and trying everything they can to find out WHAT THEIR CUSTOMERS WANT. Bioware should be doing this as well, because it just makes good sense to make something that sells really well, instead of only partially well, or medium well, or not well at all. 

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 12 avril 2012 - 08:40 .

[TheAwesomologist]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

If they did not reveal it many of the people here would be screaming out that is because of x, y or z. That it either did not agree with Bioware else would of published it or that there is some conspiracy. Like said it'sa no win sittuation for them so why do it. The mentality of this fanbase would attack them regardless. They have been listening, they took note of all the issues people have but it is their choice how to address it. They made that choice already, some people just refuse to accept the choice was made.

That seems like some pretty flimsy reasoning for not collecting information. It's not like the fallout can get any worse. besides if they did it as part of a patch you know what? People would actually have to replay the ending. Who knows maybe they won't dislike certain aspects of it. Maybe by listening to the Star Child again they may pick up something they missed.

The reasons people have for disliking the ending are pretty varried, though some similar veins exist. Bioware is addressing part of it. Kudos to them. But maybe collecting feedback from players who aren't vocal and on these forums/twitter/facebook/whatever may be useful for other projects down the road.

[Transgirlgamer]

Ownedbacon wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...


(snip due to size)

I was suggesting that the catalyst did only fail this cycle, the protheans were taken by surprise and only modified the citadel later if I remember correctly.  But if a reaper is left behind every cycle then my hypothesis of Sovreign being their answer to that doesn't fit anyway.  Plus they wouldn't know that it wouldn't work, unless they'd checked the citadel and then decided that they couldn't undo what the protheans had done.

Maybe either I was right about the crucible not being the reapers creator or another theory (that I've just come up with) is that the reaper left behind was a backup plan.  Like the Alpha relay was the back up plan to the citadel.

This is the part where Vigil talks about the keepers, Prothean sabotage, Sovereign's failed signal.

Okay, so a reaper is left behind every cycle then sends a signal, via the citadel.  I guess I have to either go back to the catalyst isn't the creator as it doesn't explicitly say that or come up with another theory.  Since the reaper obviously wasn't the back up plan either.

Either way, I won't deny it's bad writing, but it also doesn't specifically contradict anything from previous lore (which I think was one of my earlier points in this conversation.)

Modifié par Transgirlgamer, 12 avril 2012 - 08:47 .

[pikey1969]

Did I just see images of high-end Abstract Art used for defense of the endings?

That's what you want out a sci-fi epic?

Please tell me the images I saw were for some hay-wire off-topic debate that spawned over the course of the thread.

[Hyrist]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I'm sorry, but they didn't give you the equivalent of a car with no headlights, bumpers or wheels.  They gave you a complete car on which you didn't like the headlights, bumper or wheels.

ME3 has a beginning, a middle and an end.  It is a full story.  Just because people don't like the end doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


EDIT.  But something like a car is a bad analogy for a game anyway.  A car you know what will be in it before you pay for it.  With a game, any game, you may know the basic plot and some of the universe, but you don't get to know everything about it before you buy it.

Again, the point is missed.

This breaks down to absolutes, not to steal a note from the BBB communications director, but BioWare did, in fact, promise two things:

That this game would not have an A B C ending:

 

And that our choices would ultimately provide us with highly variable endings.

 
Ultimately, what we were provided with was choice without ultimate consequence.

Wrex or Wreav?
Ashley or Kaiden?
Save or kill Council?
Save or destory Collector Base?
Who (among the many possible deaths) survives?

None of it matters so long as you work to 4000 + EMS. It changes nothing of the ultimate results. Mass Effect 2 had just an "A, B" ending and they still, ultimately did far better than what was done here, because the individual decisions made previously had tangeable impact on the final mission - and there were decisions made IN the final mission that also effected the outcome.

ME3's earth mission lacks both of these critical elements, aside from the A, B, C ending we were explictly told we would not get.

We can complain about the God Child and the absolutely terriblily contrived ending that involves a litteral Deus Ex Machina, but that's ultimately a seperate complaint - and can be consitered artisitic critisim.

The fact that our choices did not matter or that we were stuck with a litteral ABC ending? Those were broken promises - a direct lie about their product. If Extended Cut does not regard these two core problems, they failed twice. There is no 'middle of the road' on that part. 

Modifié par Hyrist, 12 avril 2012 - 08:51 .