334 réponses à ce sujet

[Hyrist]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Because they're making the game and not designing it by committee. Exactly what right do you have to participate in the actual game creation process when it's their game??? If you want to have a say in designing things BEFORE a game comes out, try a Kickstarter project where your dollars buy you that right. Otherwise, it's their story to do what they want with while they're busy making the game.

Typical ignorant defence.

The truth of the matter is, they're not selling the story. They're selling the game as a total package adn the story is an element to that story. Just because the game contains art, does not allow them to defend it on the basis of being an artform. The truth of the matter is, it is ultimately a product - a product they false advertised.

You're right, they can make whatever story they want. But if they want not to be known as shady, false-advertising money grabbers, they need to deliver on their promises.

They failed to do so. Whether or not we 'like' the ending is irrelevant to the point that BioWare commited false advertising.

The worst part about this is, you are defending them when they already know it. They would not have started work on the Extended Cut if they had actually kept their promise. 

[BadgerladDK]

ticklefist wrote...

Honestly, what game does what's been proposed here?

Every MMO I've ever played, for one. Mostly when I've cancelled my account, but also several times to solicit opinions on patches, importance of various upcoming features etc. Again, the OP's suggestion wasn't to design a game by commitee, but to use the game account (since the majority of games will be tied to an Origin or EA account, which by its nature has an email attached to it) as a mechanism to get more representative feedback when Bioware ask for feedback.

Casting a wider net when gathering feedback is good, since a game's official forum is pretty much the worst self-selecting sample you can ever ask for.

[Dragoonlordz]

MakeMineMako wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They already do this. You here on the method they use already called their forums. It is ignorant of you to assume they do not know what peoples issues are with the ending. The difference is just because their solution they agreed with is not the one you might specifically wanted you assume they are either not listening or need more feedback methods. Its fallacy. The reality is they simple agreed with other customers not you.

I'm not discussing who is agreeing with who, did you read my post? You are arguing against surveys, which would give Bioware even more telemetry about what their customers want. I am arguing that big, successful companies have been doing surveys and will continue to do surveys because they work and they make sense. This forum is no replacement for surveys. Why do you think Bioware does telementry through their game engine? Surveys would be the logical compliment.

If Bioware had included a survey at the end of their game designed by someone who knows how to make a survey, the feedback would be much more precise and they could know what to priortize for their next product. The forum here is a tool, but a hard-to-quantify tool.

And, again, you're wasting your time here trying to tell unhappy customers that they should be happy. You will never succeed. I can only guess you're arguing with them to, I don't know, scratch an itch you have for arguing?

Exactly. It's called 'marketing research'.

Good marketing research turns out better products. Better products means repeat customers. And people opening their wallets trumps "artistic vision" and "artistic integrity" in any case. Or, at least it had better, when you are owned by a large corporation like Electronic Arts, whose main concern is sales figures and not a developer's "vision" for a product. 

You don't get to have it both ways, either they are in it for the money or they are doing it because it is something they want to do. If it was for the money there would be probably no ME or DA, in the form of RPG's. Most gamers do not like RPG's. If you go down the route of what Bioware wants to make then you safegaurd the ability to continue making RPG's against the majority of gamers who are potential customers if they go full on away from RPGs.

[McAllyster]

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.

However pissing off your customers is definitely hurts business as you can see.

[tetsutsuru]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Area42T wrote...

tetsutsuru wrote...

This thread topic doesn't make much sense. Regardless of "feedback", at the end of the day, Mass Effect is BioWare's "story", and they'd tell it the way they want to. You think J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings heavilly based on how his readers wanted the story to progress? That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

The third installment in Lord of the Rings didn't suck

There are plenty of people that think it should have ended when Sauron was defeated and Aragorn was crowned and not gone on, back to the Shire and then on to when Bilbo and Frodo leave Middle Earth.

I'm not one of those people, but I think this is what  tetsutsuru means

Ok, I got a little lost in the middle.  Where did I say the 3rd installment of LotR sucked?

Anyway, I was only referencing J.R.R. Tolkien (as the author) and LotR (as the story) as specific examples, and simply how J.R.R. Tokien wrote his story the way he wanted it, and not how its readers wanted the story to progress.

That's all.

I'll speak for myself - I like LotR.  Quite a long read, but I liked it.  The films were good too.

[Ownedbacon]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They already do this. You here on the method they use already called their forums. It is ignorant of you to assume they do not know what peoples issues are with the ending. The difference is just because their solution they agreed with is not the one you might specifically wanted you assume they are either not listening or need more feedback methods. Its fallacy. The reality is they simple agreed with other customers not you.

I'm not discussing who is agreeing with who, did you read my post? You are arguing against surveys, which would give Bioware even more telemetry about what their customers want. I am arguing that big, successful companies have been doing surveys and will continue to do surveys because they work and they make sense. This forum is no replacement for surveys. Why do you think Bioware does telementry through their game engine? Surveys would be the logical compliment.

If Bioware had included a survey at the end of their game designed by someone who knows how to make a survey, the feedback would be much more precise and they could know what to priortize for their next product. The forum here is a tool, but a hard-to-quantify tool.

And, again, you're wasting your time here trying to tell unhappy customers that they should be happy. You will never succeed. I can only guess you're arguing with them to, I don't know, scratch an itch you have for arguing?

Exactly. It's called 'marketing research'.

Good marketing research turns out better products. Better products means repeat customers. And people opening their wallets trumps "artistic vision" and "artistic integrity" in any case. Or, at least it had better, when you are owned by a large corporation like Electronic Arts, whose main concern is sales figures and not a developer's "vision" for a product. 

You don't get to have it both ways, either they are in it for the money or they are doing it because it is something they want to do. If it was for the money there would be probably no ME or DA, in the form of RPG's. Most gamers do not like RPG's. If you go down the route of what Bioware wants to make then you safegaurd the ability to continue making RPG's against the majority of gamers who are potential customers if they go full on away from RPGs.

Could that be why they implemented the Multiplayer? Maybe they'll be taking the series in a new direction. Even the single player has become more and more focused on combat and while maintaining some RPG elements has strayed from others.

[Almostfaceman]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You don't get to have it both ways, either they are in it for the money or they are doing it because it is something they want to do. If it was for the money there would be probably no ME or DA, in the form of RPG's. Most gamers do not like RPG's. If you go down the route of what Bioware wants to make then you safegaurd the ability to continue making RPG's against the majority of gamers who are potential customers if they go full on away from RPGs.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. When a company goes into business, sure a part of it is someone doing something they want to do, but only a part. Part of their business plan is Can They Make Money Doing What They Want to Do. The point of "most gamers don't like RPG's" is moot. The point is, how do we make an RPG that more people will play, how do we make one that will sell to the most people that like RPG's, and can we make a large enough profit doing so to to be a successful company and grow. Telementry, customer feedback, market research, all are tools that have been around for a long time and they are not going anywhere. A suggestion that less market research is called for is like telling a company to squint at their customers instead of opening their eyes to what the customer really wants.

[AtreiyaN7]

Larg_Kellein wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Because they're making the game and not designing it by committee. Exactly what right do you have to participate in the actual game creation process when it's their game??? If you want to have a say in designing things BEFORE a game comes out, try a Kickstarter project where your dollars buy you that right. Otherwise, it's their story to do what they want with while they're busy making the game.

Yeah, great.... That wasn't what the OP was suggesting, though.

My opinion is that they didn't anticipate such a vehement response and that they didn't have any reason to create an in-game survey system as if in anticipation of negative reactions. And frankly, if you do want some kind of say in really changing things, then yes, you would be better served by a project where you actually do get to determine the course of a game before it's made instead of wanking about the ending(s) after the fact/making demands instead of giving feedback.

[Zix13]

count_4 wrote...

Because they would have to accept the results as truth.

[Almostfaceman]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Larg_Kellein wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Because they're making the game and not designing it by committee. Exactly what right do you have to participate in the actual game creation process when it's their game??? If you want to have a say in designing things BEFORE a game comes out, try a Kickstarter project where your dollars buy you that right. Otherwise, it's their story to do what they want with while they're busy making the game.

Yeah, great.... That wasn't what the OP was suggesting, though.

My opinion is that they didn't anticipate such a vehement response and that they didn't have any reason to create an in-game survey system as if in anticipation of negative reactions. And frankly, if you do want some kind of say in really changing things, then yes, you would be better served by a project where you actually do get to determine the course of a game before it's made instead of wanking about the ending(s) after the fact/making demands instead of giving feedback.

Not really, with the fluid nature of the digital world and the prominence of DLC, "wanking" about the ending bears fruit, such as the revised ending of Fallout 3.

Try as you might, you're never going to get an unhappy customer to shut up, you're not going to succeed in trying to get between an unhappy customer and the company who made the product, and you're not going to change the fact that customer feedback is important to companies both before and after a product is released.

[Dragoonlordz]

Ownedbacon wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

MakeMineMako wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They already do this. You here on the method they use already called their forums. It is ignorant of you to assume they do not know what peoples issues are with the ending. The difference is just because their solution they agreed with is not the one you might specifically wanted you assume they are either not listening or need more feedback methods. Its fallacy. The reality is they simple agreed with other customers not you.

I'm not discussing who is agreeing with who, did you read my post? You are arguing against surveys, which would give Bioware even more telemetry about what their customers want. I am arguing that big, successful companies have been doing surveys and will continue to do surveys because they work and they make sense. This forum is no replacement for surveys. Why do you think Bioware does telementry through their game engine? Surveys would be the logical compliment.

If Bioware had included a survey at the end of their game designed by someone who knows how to make a survey, the feedback would be much more precise and they could know what to priortize for their next product. The forum here is a tool, but a hard-to-quantify tool.

And, again, you're wasting your time here trying to tell unhappy customers that they should be happy. You will never succeed. I can only guess you're arguing with them to, I don't know, scratch an itch you have for arguing?

Exactly. It's called 'marketing research'.

Good marketing research turns out better products. Better products means repeat customers. And people opening their wallets trumps "artistic vision" and "artistic integrity" in any case. Or, at least it had better, when you are owned by a large corporation like Electronic Arts, whose main concern is sales figures and not a developer's "vision" for a product. 

You don't get to have it both ways, either they are in it for the money or they are doing it because it is something they want to do. If it was for the money there would be probably no ME or DA, in the form of RPG's. Most gamers do not like RPG's. If you go down the route of what Bioware wants to make then you safegaurd the ability to continue making RPG's against the majority of gamers who are potential customers if they go full on away from RPGs.

Could that be why they implemented the Multiplayer? Maybe they'll be taking the series in a new direction. Even the single player has become more and more focused on combat and while maintaining some RPG elements has strayed from others.

It's baby steps. They are fighting to keep their stories in RPG format. While allowing some leeway to allow for new gamers. Believe me if they wanted just money they would drop the RPG genre. As Gaider said and rightly so...

David Gaider (Lead Writer) from Dragon Age PAX panel about why creating original IPs :
"One of the main reason to do that. If we wanted to tear down our world. We could do that. Because it's our world."

If they did not defend their right to decide how to make their games then EA and the general gaming potential customers who do not like RPG by vast majority would mean you can kiss goodbye to ME and DA as more money can be made catering to others. So I will very much defend their right to create the games they wish to make and will defend my rights to buy or not buy it but I sure as hell won't go demanding the rewrite something they already produced. Leave feedback, let them digest it and decide what to do with it.

If turns out future product did not agree with my feedback I might not buy it, if did then so be it but be more reasonable about it. If do not like it then sell it and buy something you like instead. Leave your feedback and let them get on with it. If what they do doesn't match what you enjoy then buy something else, it's not hard. It is in fact quite simple and easy to do. Much more productive than complaining for a month when already told what they are doing over and over and especially what they are not doing.

[Transgirlgamer]

Ownedbacon wrote...

(snip lots of quotes within quotes)

Well if you look at the Citadel suddenly being the Catalyst and not just a habitable mass relay to dark space. In the second video it talks of the Keepers evolving to a point where they only listen to the signal from the Citadel not Sovereign itself. That is why Sovereign sends a signal to the Citadel then the signal is sent to the Keepers then the Keepers open the relay. Still if there is an entity that claims the Citadel is a part of itself how did it get reprogrammed?  Realistically the Catalyst should be a part of the Citadel as if the Citadel is a living relay.

Fair enough, that's screwy logic. (the Catalysts)  I figured that the Catalyst is kind of like the Geth and the Reapers themselves in that it's made up of lots of differnt programs and it's only when they come together that it can be considered sentient.  I'm not sure how this fits in.  I guess I'm going to have to go back to the drawing board with this theory.

I've never said that there is bad writing in ME3 though.  I don't think anyone can seriously deny that who's played the game.

If they wanted to go about the whole Reaper creator business it is a lot less contradictory and convoluted had its location been in dark space where the Reapers hibernated. They kept their Collector experiments hidden there it would only make sense to keep your creator/controller and its station (that is a part of a means to control or destroy) you in a safe location. I don't see how this doesn't contradict. It was poor writing, this is why the ending falls short on so many levels and really isn't fitting to BioWare and the series itself. They have done better even in this same game. It seems they ran out of time rushed out an ending and are just standing behind it so BIoWare and EA don't look bad.

If the catalyst was the reaper's creator, then the reapers may not have any input into where it was.  I agree that it should have been in a safe location, although I would imagine that the point where your entire fleet arrives when the harvest begins, would be the safest place that was still within the galaxy.  I believe that the crucible/catalyst was always intended as a way to end the cycle when, somehow, a race came along that could initiate the change by building the crucible and docking then getting to where you meet the catalyst.  So it makes sense that it would have to be in the galaxy and also at a place where the races in each cycle could potentially study it.

I look at the Tuchanka mission which is written extremely well and was executed well with gameplay. This is probably one of the most well crafted missions, it delivered on so many levels. It is probably my favorite mission in the game. The scene where Mordin sacrificed himself to stop the genophage and the "Vigil" music was playing as the Normandy crew looked on with hope. This was the most memorable scene to me it sent shivers down my spine. It was truly artistic it stayed true to the game and the series itself. It had a lot of substance.

I agree that the Tuchanka mission was excellent writing and execution.  I have spent a little while searching the internet to find a way to cure the genophage but still keep Eve and Mordin alive.  I know it's not possible now but that only improves it for me in a way.

The main theme of Mass Effect has been arguably "unity through diversity". Your main goal has always been stop the Reapers no matter the cost even if everyone dies trying. Shepard when presented with this sudden change in theme and goal now being organics vs. synthetics. He doesn't argue he just accepts that this is the reality of the situation when there is clearly evidence proving otherwise. He didn't accept Sovereign's or Saren's attempts to deter him. This I would say is a contradiction of Shepard's character from everything up to this point (regardless of you being Paragon or Renegade).

I don't deny that the ending comes out of nowhere and that it's not great writing.  I have stated before in other threads that I don't think it really fits.  As to it being a contradiction in character, this is a situation that suddenly comes at Shepard from nowhere when she's tired, wounded and under more pressure than she's ever been under in the three games.  It is, as far as she knows, the last chance this cycle has to put up any serious resistance and these are the only choices that can be made as far as she knows.  At no point has Shepard refused to make a choice and walked away so all that's left is which one of the possibilities she chooses. 

[Dragoonlordz]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You don't get to have it both ways, either they are in it for the money or they are doing it because it is something they want to do. If it was for the money there would be probably no ME or DA, in the form of RPG's. Most gamers do not like RPG's. If you go down the route of what Bioware wants to make then you safegaurd the ability to continue making RPG's against the majority of gamers who are potential customers if they go full on away from RPGs.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. When a company goes into business, sure a part of it is someone doing something they want to do, but only a part. Part of their business plan is Can They Make Money Doing What They Want to Do. The point of "most gamers don't like RPG's" is moot. The point is, how do we make an RPG that more people will play, how do we make one that will sell to the most people that like RPG's, and can we make a large enough profit doing so to to be a successful company and grow. Telementry, customer feedback, market research, all are tools that have been around for a long time and they are not going anywhere. A suggestion that less market research is called for is like telling a company to squint at their customers instead of opening their eyes to what the customer really wants.

When a company harrasses its customers with constant demand for feedback, as a customer I leave. As is the case with many others. They (Bioware) have the right balance as it stands. It you want to leave feedback you can on here or by keeping on data gathering through the game itself. If you force surveys down peoples throats too the only thing your doing is further damaging your customer relations.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 10:04 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Hyrist wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Because they're making the game and not designing it by committee. Exactly what right do you have to participate in the actual game creation process when it's their game??? If you want to have a say in designing things BEFORE a game comes out, try a Kickstarter project where your dollars buy you that right. Otherwise, it's their story to do what they want with while they're busy making the game.

Typical ignorant defence.

The truth of the matter is, they're not selling the story. They're selling the game as a total package adn the story is an element to that story. Just because the game contains art, does not allow them to defend it on the basis of being an artform. The truth of the matter is, it is ultimately a product - a product they false advertised.

You're right, they can make whatever story they want. But if they want not to be known as shady, false-advertising money grabbers, they need to deliver on their promises.

They failed to do so. Whether or not we 'like' the ending is irrelevant to the point that BioWare commited false advertising.

The worst part about this is, you are defending them when they already know it. They would not have started work on the Extended Cut if they had actually kept their promise. 

Ignorant defense, eh? Frankly, I find your claims about false advertising ignorant and a matter of wishful thinking, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions. And since I'm entirely sick of quite a few of the people here, I kind of don't care about your opinion of me.

They're working on the Extended Cut because they listened to feedback from people who found that the endings didn't meet their expectations - expectations based on how they imagined things would play out. The fact that it didn't work out the way you imagined that it would doesn't constitute false advertising. Things change all the time when a company makes a game - and if you are actually naive enough to buy into all the PR that surrounds games (not just this game - all games), that's your problem. Games are hyped all the time, and not every feature that gets talked about makes it in, and sometimes things don't work out in the way that you anticipated.

[Almostfaceman]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You don't get to have it both ways, either they are in it for the money or they are doing it because it is something they want to do. If it was for the money there would be probably no ME or DA, in the form of RPG's. Most gamers do not like RPG's. If you go down the route of what Bioware wants to make then you safegaurd the ability to continue making RPG's against the majority of gamers who are potential customers if they go full on away from RPGs.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. When a company goes into business, sure a part of it is someone doing something they want to do, but only a part. Part of their business plan is Can They Make Money Doing What They Want to Do. The point of "most gamers don't like RPG's" is moot. The point is, how do we make an RPG that more people will play, how do we make one that will sell to the most people that like RPG's, and can we make a large enough profit doing so to to be a successful company and grow. Telementry, customer feedback, market research, all are tools that have been around for a long time and they are not going anywhere. A suggestion that less market research is called for is like telling a company to squint at their customers instead of opening their eyes to what the customer really wants.

When a company harrasses its customers with constant demand for feedback, as a customer I leave. As is the case with many others. They (Bioware) have the right balance as it stands. It you want to leave feedback you can on here or by keeping on data gathering through the game itself. If you force surveys down peoples throats too the only thing your doing is further damaging your customer relations.

Not really, major companies do it all the time, and they're still in business.

[Transgirlgamer]

And at this point it's time for me to head to bed. It's been a pleasure discussing everything here with you all, I imagine that this will be a much longer thread when I wake up though so I'm not sure if I'll have the time to catch up with it. Anyone is free to PM me though if they want to continue to discuss points with me, I'll answer as and when I can.

[Dragoonlordz]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You don't get to have it both ways, either they are in it for the money or they are doing it because it is something they want to do. If it was for the money there would be probably no ME or DA, in the form of RPG's. Most gamers do not like RPG's. If you go down the route of what Bioware wants to make then you safegaurd the ability to continue making RPG's against the majority of gamers who are potential customers if they go full on away from RPGs.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. When a company goes into business, sure a part of it is someone doing something they want to do, but only a part. Part of their business plan is Can They Make Money Doing What They Want to Do. The point of "most gamers don't like RPG's" is moot. The point is, how do we make an RPG that more people will play, how do we make one that will sell to the most people that like RPG's, and can we make a large enough profit doing so to to be a successful company and grow. Telementry, customer feedback, market research, all are tools that have been around for a long time and they are not going anywhere. A suggestion that less market research is called for is like telling a company to squint at their customers instead of opening their eyes to what the customer really wants.

When a company harrasses its customers with constant demand for feedback, as a customer I leave. As is the case with many others. They (Bioware) have the right balance as it stands. It you want to leave feedback you can on here or by keeping on data gathering through the game itself. If you force surveys down peoples throats too the only thing your doing is further damaging your customer relations.

Not really, major companies do it all the time, and they're still in business.

They still lose customers from taking such approaches. If you deny that then here's some feedback for you, reality says differently. Your costing yourself customers by being so aggressive in seeking feedback. Like all the other rational people here who have left the discussion, I will do so too.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 10:09 .

[JustinS1985]

tetsutsuru wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Area42T wrote...

tetsutsuru wrote...

This thread topic doesn't make much sense. Regardless of "feedback", at the end of the day, Mass Effect is BioWare's "story", and they'd tell it the way they want to. You think J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings heavilly based on how his readers wanted the story to progress? That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

The third installment in Lord of the Rings didn't suck

There are plenty of people that think it should have ended when Sauron was defeated and Aragorn was crowned and not gone on, back to the Shire and then on to when Bilbo and Frodo leave Middle Earth.

I'm not one of those people, but I think this is what  tetsutsuru means

Ok, I got a little lost in the middle.  Where did I say the 3rd installment of LotR sucked?

Anyway, I was only referencing J.R.R. Tolkien (as the author) and LotR (as the story) as specific examples, and simply how J.R.R. Tokien wrote his story the way he wanted it, and not how its readers wanted the story to progress.

That's all.

I'll speak for myself - I like LotR.  Quite a long read, but I liked it.  The films were good too.

LotR is a pretty bad example since the triology wouldn't exist without massive fan requests

Tolkien originally intended to end the LotR tale with The Hobbit.  The massive popularity and repeated fan requests convinced his publisher to tell him to write another book with "hobbits and goblins" from that LotR was born.

[Hyrist]

Transgirlgamer wrote...


Your EMS score is based on the decisions you make.  It fluctuates up and down as you make those decisions.  Also, you decide what to do in the other games therefore, it's still based on your decisions.

Semantic agument. The black and white of it is that there's no point to those choices. EMS is severly ineffectual as a design point and and again, holds no bearing on the story at all. You can do whatever you want to reach up to 4000 ems and the result is the same. There is no consqence for those choices - the individual decissions do not effect those 'variations' in those endings at all beyond a contrite, impersonal numercal value that again.

Again, the choices you make do not effect the outcome - only the fact that you make enough choices, and you can circumvent more than half that by playing multiplayer. That is not a game that empasises choice.

Hacking a save file is not something that Bioware can account for in
it's developement as there's always going to be someone who does it to
give themselves an advantage at one point or another.  They can't realistically be expected to design something takes this into account.  Whatever system they chose, there would be someone who hacked their save file to change their in game decisions.  Even if it was just to see exactly what circumstances led to what ending.

This arugment would have weight if they did not already have a pre-built design that DID take it into account. Again

No, in story terms there are three basic endings, Destroy, Control and Synthesis with differing consequences for each depending on your EMS, which as I have pointed out is based on your decisions.  For example, with destroy you can have everything on Earth destroyed, reapers and buildings destroyed or just reapers destroyed with Shepard either living or dying in hte last one.  Each makes a difference in terms of the story universe.

 

A universe that ultimatly ends with no acknwoledgement of your choice actualy happening. It's one ending - pick blue green or red, the relays blow up, the normandy gets stranded. These are not different endings, just minorly touched upon refrence in a story that ultimately is left without actual acknowledgement of the impact of ANY of your decissions.

Again, your decissions are boiled down to this:
Did I get my EMS high enough -
What color explosion do I want?

I've never said that I think ME3's variables are done well, just that they have been done.

If I greeted you, and you greeted me, technically, we've had a conversation.

It is lacking in any sort of substance or worth, but it is there.

Quit arguing semantics and admit the substance of your arguments have no logical ground to stand on.

BioWare falsely advertised their game, and a large number of their customers are upset about it.

Had they listened to the wealth of previous feedback, instead of rolling their eyes like the cirtisims made before are the equivilant of the boy wolf, they ultimately would not have ended up with nearly as many people screaming.

[Hyrist]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They still lose customers from taking such approaches. If you deny that then here's some feedback for you, reality says differently. Your costing yourself customers by being so aggressive in seeking feedback. Like all the other rational people here who have left the discussion, I will do so too.

Given the manner in which you have rejected any argument made, and have made several of your own based upon false logic, I would hardly call myself rational, were I in your position.

Your arguments have no solid ground to stand upon, agian. 

It is ok to have an opinion, but an opinion is not a fact. And the fact is, BioWare misrepresneted its product, and provided and ending of poor enough quality to cause the largest backlash known in the history of video games.

[Almostfaceman]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They still lose customers from taking such approaches. If you deny that then here's some feedback for you, reality says differently. Your costing yourself customers by being so aggressive in seeking feedback. Like all the other rational people here who have left the discussion, I will do so too.

Nice, an insult on the way out. Reported.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 12 avril 2012 - 10:18 .

[AcesRedd]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Hyrist wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Because they're making the game and not designing it by committee. Exactly what right do you have to participate in the actual game creation process when it's their game??? If you want to have a say in designing things BEFORE a game comes out, try a Kickstarter project where your dollars buy you that right. Otherwise, it's their story to do what they want with while they're busy making the game.

Typical ignorant defence.

The truth of the matter is, they're not selling the story. They're selling the game as a total package adn the story is an element to that story. Just because the game contains art, does not allow them to defend it on the basis of being an artform. The truth of the matter is, it is ultimately a product - a product they false advertised.

You're right, they can make whatever story they want. But if they want not to be known as shady, false-advertising money grabbers, they need to deliver on their promises.

They failed to do so. Whether or not we 'like' the ending is irrelevant to the point that BioWare commited false advertising.

The worst part about this is, you are defending them when they already know it. They would not have started work on the Extended Cut if they had actually kept their promise. 

Ignorant defense, eh? Frankly, I find your claims about false advertising ignorant and a matter of wishful thinking, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions. And since I'm entirely sick of quite a few of the people here, I kind of don't care about your opinion of me.

They're working on the Extended Cut because they listened to feedback from people who found that the endings didn't meet their expectations - expectations based on how they imagined things would play out. The fact that it didn't work out the way you imagined that it would doesn't constitute false advertising. Things change all the time when a company makes a game - and if you are actually naive enough to buy into all the PR that surrounds games (not just this game - all games), that's your problem. Games are hyped all the time, and not every feature that gets talked about makes it in, and sometimes things don't work out in the way that you anticipated.

Well maybe its not ignorance maybe someone is just stupid. ..............wonders if that someone has figured out who they are. 

Whether you liked the ending or not there was false advertisement from EAware done through many many interviews. There are plenty of threads on these boards and one in specific that details a ton of things they said up to a few days before release and didn't deliver on at all.

I'm not going to go look for all the details but essentially some of the stuff that they completely lied about was along the lines of::

We're not going to have endings where its just A, B, or C
and
We're going to answer all those questions NOT leave the player with all these unanswered questions.
If you really want to know then LURK more before showing your ignorance...or whatever it is 

 

[Hyrist]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Ignorant defense, eh? 

Yes, it is an ignorant defence.



No other argument other than debate on over a communications manager of the BBB's convfirmation can constitute a possible legal proceeding can hold weight here. This has gone beyond simple arguing of semantics, which seems to be the only defence pro-enders have aside from "they can make whatever ending they want cause they're 'artists'."

To quote 
Marjorie Stephens, who is the director of communications at Better Business Bureau of Northern Indiana:  "The issue at stake here is, did BioWare falsely advertise? Technically, yes, they did. In the first bullet point, where it states 'the decisions you make completely shape your experience', there is no indecision in that statement. It is an absolute.” 

We can take every other absolute quote BioWare has piled among the one she's referring to on the very site and packaging.

There is a difference between hyping up your game, and false advertising. In hyping a game, you do not use absolute terms. You use buzzwords like 'exciting, riviting, engaging'. These were not utalized at all. Bioware made a clean cut promise they failed to give here. The players that upset realized that.

BioWare can say whatever they want at this point to try to play damage control. "We're listening." isn't "We were wrong." or "We Agreed." their reputation is damaged by this fiasco and they know it. If this was JUST a matter of artistic tastes this would not be nearly as much of a problem for them as it is now. Many view that the very basic premises of the game were ruined by this ending and it's very apparent lack of substance and coherance. 

Had BioWare not reacted, this sort of problem would not have gone away. As it stands right now, many who were initially upset are still skeptical that BioWare can complete their promises on the second go-around. 

I've no illusions that BioWare is capable of pleasing everyone. But I've already outlined the two major sticking points (no consequence or relevance for choices made in the game after 'final goodbye' aside from bulding a very impersonal statistic), and contrived "A, B, C" ending that was explicitly disclaimed by a BioWare rep, that is given to you by a litteral Deus Ex Machina.

One of these things can easily be solved by an "Extended Cut." The other one cannot be regarded without a flat out, entirely alternate ending which BioWare has given a heavy-handed 'NO' to. In spite of today's era of DLC, patches, and the Genre's noted reputation for having multiple possible endings. (Chrono Trigger had what, 12, 13 in it's handheld version? [guess which one was canon!])

Modifié par Hyrist, 12 avril 2012 - 10:51 .

[AcesRedd]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

They still lose customers from taking such approaches. If you deny that then here's some feedback for you, reality says differently. Your costing yourself customers by being so aggressive in seeking feedback. Like all the other rational people here who have left the discussion, I will do so too.

Nice, an insult on the way out. Reported.

Wasn't particularly following the argument  about the feedback, but
how is any of that an insult?

[The Night Mammoth]

I love the whole 'it's BioWare's world, they can do what they want with it' argument, since it's one that I can actually agree with.

Or, I could agree with, if Mass Effect were a story Drew Karpyshyn and Mac Walters dreamed up in their spare time, and only shared with a select group of close friends and no one else. Sure, do whatever you want with it then.

When they put a visual side to it, compose music to fit the tone, develop satisfying game play to keep people interested, put it all on a disk, market and advertise it as something I should like, put it in shops and charge £40 for it, end it with an uplifting conclusion, with the obvious intention of making a sequel, then create a bunch of extra content patches and charge for them as well, all for the purpose of generating a profit both immediately and potentially in the future due to creating strong fan loyalty by investing players in the story and characters, it's no longer exclusively there's that you can do whatever they want with.

Essentially, when they deliberately try to create a franchise with strong fan investment, the story transcends their ownership and the developers become trustees of the fans to do right by them and what they've created, with a good deal of leeway. Stay true to the plot, and the game's premise and themes, and generally, everything will be fine. There's plenty of creative freedom to be had in those constraints.

Case in point: Our very own, Mass Effect 2. It had Shepard die and join Cerberus, fighting an entirely new enemy. Yet the premise, themes, and general plot remained consistent.

This fiasco shows us what happens when developers forget this.

Mass Effect 3's ending was less "let's do our best by the fan's expectations and the story we've created", and more "hey guys guys! I've got this like, really clever idea, who cares about being faithful to the themes and premise, the fans wont care because this is so smart".

------ To clarify before someone jumps down my throat, I'm not saying BioWare's writing team are stupid, just that they tried something completely out of place with obvious time and resource constraints ------