334 réponses à ce sujet

[AcesRedd]

Hyrist wrote...

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!])

Much better than my response, *takes hat off to your post*

[AcesRedd]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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 ------

Also I'd like to add to this, one does not need to be stupid to have a stupid idea. Additionally if you're the boss and get a stupid idea sometimes people just let you run with it because, well you're the boss. Peer review helps avoid such problems, but well if you're the boss and tell someone you REALLY REALLY like something sometimes people won't stand up to you even if the idea is really really....well you know.

[SinerAthin]

Because they already know that the result would be an overwhelming negative response to the ending.

[FlamingBoy]

because they preferred speculation for everyone

[Mev186]

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.

The way you make it seem like: Game companies can either do whatever they want with zero input from anybody or game companies open the flood gates and let everyone influence the product.

There is some evidence that Casey and Mac did the ending with little or no outside input from anyone. Does that sound like a wise move when dealing with a franchise as imersive as Mass Effect ? Thats not to say that they aren't talented, they are. It's just a very risky thing to tust the conclusion of a multi million dollar franchise to two people, even two very talented ones.

[Shawn Pickett]

What I want to know is why not a survey? They track the stats, so should be able to tell who has finished the game, why not send a survey to the owners who finished the game at least once. They could get a solid handle on how many people like and dislike the ending. This is not about design, this is about customer satisfaction, lots of companies send out customer satisfaction survey's Bioware has a P.R. problem, this survey would either A) give them ammo to prove that it's a whiny minority that needs to drop it, or there is a problem and they need to address it. A good survey could also seek opinion on how to fix it if players deem it necessary and give them options and ideas on how to proceed.

Personally I'm hopping the "expanded ending" DLC fleshes things out enough that every body will accept it, if not be happy with it, but I'm not holding my breath.

[count_4]

dezpinato wrote...

count_4 wrote...

Because they would have to accept the results as truth.

You have to own a game to post in here so wouldn't that count the same?

Not exactly, because a user-created poll in here with 50,000 "whiners" complaining they don't like the ending can easily be argumented away as a minority and not representative as we all have seen.
Now imagine an official in-game poll where 90% of the players say the ending sucked. BioWare can't repel that. It's their poll, it's official and, if implemented right, every player with an internet connection would have taken part. They would be forced to admit that they messed up bad. 

[Fiyenyaa]

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.

Please then; do not make statements such as these.

Now obviously this statement doesn't mean "design by committee" and I'd never suggest such a thing because most fans are not professional game designers. What I will say is that if you say things like "we really value feedback", or "we created the story with our fans" and then you make a product which has an important element that fans are not at all happy with, then you have to some degree screwed up.

[Schief724]

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.

That's funny, because Casey Hudson seems to disagree...

Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.” - Casey Hudson