334 réponses à ce sujet

[viperabyss]

Dragoonlordz wrote...


It is not a logical conclusion if read my responses to Dream. If you have been around here for long time you should know this. Every single title these days has the same people trying to paint a picture of it's the end of the world or road for Bioware, every single time they are proven wrong over and over and this time is no different.

Again, you completely misunderstood my message. My message is not Bioware would bankrupt. My message is that the incentive Bioware would create another Mass Effect game would be significantly lowered if people actually do as you say, and return the game. In that case, no one wins.

And value other people's opinion based on their seniority on a forum is really hilarious.

[Almostfaceman]

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.

Since when is getting customer feedback designing a game by committee? I see (and fill out) customer surveys all the time.

[Dragoonlordz]

FOX216BC wrote...

@Dragoonlordz Stop posting over and over again.
I have seen you do it in many other topics as well.
Clearly you don't agree with most people in this topic.
A reasonable person would simply move to another a topic.
Preferably one to his/her liking.

Don't you see the irony in what you are doing here.
I'll give you a hint "vocal minority", keyword "vocal"

Forums are mean't for discussion, you do not get to decide what I discuss.

[xHarrison23]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

TransientNomad wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Keldaurz 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.

Tell that to the quest surveys on SWTOR.

AN MMO game is a different thing to a stand alone game.  An MMO game is a continuous experience that relies on the players to make up a lot of it's content.  By that, I don't mean it's story or quests, I mean the community of the game which people interact with every time they log onto the servers.  I have stopped playing MMO games as I haven't enjoyed the community the players and developers working together had built.  The first MMO I played was Star Wars Galaxies and I got into it because I really enjoyed the community, despite the repetatie grinding.  Until SOE stopped listening to the playerbase they already had and turned it into a WoW clone with a Star Wars skin.  The community died, my interest was lost and now, the game itself has closed down.

Mass Effect 3 however, is a single story.  It is much more like a book or a film whilst an MMO is more like a traitional, pen and paper or tabletop RPG.  You don't go to your favourite author or director and say 'Change this about this book/film you released' and expect them to actually do it.  It just won't happen.  Mass Effect: Deception was a special case that I don't know the details about so I can't comment on why it was a special case.

The book was terribly recieved, had a laundry list of plotholes and inconsistancies, and was a insult to ME lore.  Some would argue this is the same case with the games ending.  Still, endings have been changed in films and novels before in a number of different ways.  Harry Potter was originally slated to die but test audiences were against it.  In Clerks, the same thing was going to happen to the main character, but audiences were against it.  Bladerunner's director cut changed the theme of the entire original film.  The list goes on, with both big and small films and novels benefiting from test audiences and after release reactions

J.K. Rowling didn't release a version that had Harry die, then change it due to fan outcry.  As far as I know, with Clerks, that was changed before release.  With things like directors cuts, it's a little different.  Do they change things because of fan outcry or because the directors feel that things should have been different to how they were released?  Look at Star Wars for a prime example, George Lucas refuses to changing it back to Han shooting first as was in the original because it doesn't fit how he wants the film to be, despite a huge fan reaction against it.  And that changes hardly anything in the story.

Ever heard of the great writer Charles Dickens who wrote Great Expectations. He actually rewrote the ending to that story do to fan feed back. No one bashes on him for compromising his "artisitc integrity", he is viewed as one of the best authors of his time.

[Allen Spellwaver]

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 agree that you developers should stand your ground.But the thing is the ending was awkward with so many plot holes and missing details apart from its philosophical value.
What we want,or at least what some of us want what I want is a ending full of details and conclusion for the whole previous content. Especially the conclusion of our Shep and their romanced one.
I hope we won't be disappointed again when the Extended Cut is released.Can you just promise us that you won't fail us again?

[Ownedbacon]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Keldaurz 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.

Tell that to the quest surveys on SWTOR.

AN MMO game is a different thing to a stand alone game.  An MMO game is a continuous experience that relies on the players to make up a lot of it's content.  By that, I don't mean it's story or quests, I mean the community of the game which people interact with every time they log onto the servers.  I have stopped playing MMO games as I haven't enjoyed the community the players and developers working together had built.  The first MMO I played was Star Wars Galaxies and I got into it because I really enjoyed the community, despite the repetatie grinding.  Until SOE stopped listening to the playerbase they already had and turned it into a WoW clone with a Star Wars skin.  The community died, my interest was lost and now, the game itself has closed down.

Mass Effect 3 however, is a single story.  It is much more like a book or a film whilst an MMO is more like a traitional, pen and paper or tabletop RPG.  You don't go to your favourite author or director and say 'Change this about this book/film you released' and expect them to actually do it.  It just won't happen.  Mass Effect: Deception was a special case that I don't know the details about so I can't comment on why it was a special case.

Regarding Mass Effect: Deception
http://kotaku.com/58...a-ton-of-errors
https://docs.google....?pli=1&sle=true

First, thank you for the links.  They've cleared up for me why Deception was a special case.

Basically it's because Deception had things that were in direct conflict with established canon.  In a book that's part of a series, that is something that should have been caught by the editors before it even went to press.  That it wasn't, is was really sloppy on their part.

ME3 is different as (as far as I can recall) nothing happens that is in direct conflict with established canon.  It's entirely possible that the godchild is somehow in the citadel somewhere we've never been before, or even it's a group of programmes in it's systems somewhere.  To paraphrase something I said in a post that said gay men shouldn't be in ME3 because they're not in the first two games, just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  And the same can be said for anything that is introduced in ME3, as far as I can remember.

As for the Catalyst, its existence contradicts Sovereign's duties as Vanguard. As vanguard its job was to monitor organic life and send a signal to the Citadel to open the mass relay when the races were advanced enough. The Catalyst says the Citadel "is a part of me" why did it let the Protheans reprogram the keepers? Why did it not take on the duties of vanguard since it could have monitored organic life (it knows a lot about what is going on in the galaxy) and opened the relay itself. This would have been a far better trap and I doubt the races would have had any clue as to what was going on. Having Sovereign in the Milky Way seems like it could possibly give away its plan and fail (much like what happened in ME1). People say that the Catalyst had no control but it created the Reapers and through the Crucible was able to relinquish control to Shepard. The Catalyst just raises more questions unnecessarily that could have been avoided by not including it as a godlike character. It should have just been a tool for the Reapers not their creator. I would say it would have made more sense for it to be an AI that is the Citadel and uses keepers to maintain itself. As for activating the Crucible it maybe helps you out on account of the Prothean sabotage.

Modifié par Ownedbacon, 12 avril 2012 - 07:18 .

[bboynexus]

People here on BSN who honestly think they have a better idea how to sit down and create a gaming experience need a reality check. Your general feedback is important for helping to shape what the general experience might focus on, but you have absolutely no role in crafting the specific moment-to-moment experience. Why should you? As I said, most of you haven't got a clue what the implications are for a lot of your suggestions in terms of the craft.

Stanley Woo is right.

That still doesn't excuse the endings, of course.

[Dragoonlordz]

xHarrison23 wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

TransientNomad wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Keldaurz 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.

Tell that to the quest surveys on SWTOR.

AN MMO game is a different thing to a stand alone game.  An MMO game is a continuous experience that relies on the players to make up a lot of it's content.  By that, I don't mean it's story or quests, I mean the community of the game which people interact with every time they log onto the servers.  I have stopped playing MMO games as I haven't enjoyed the community the players and developers working together had built.  The first MMO I played was Star Wars Galaxies and I got into it because I really enjoyed the community, despite the repetatie grinding.  Until SOE stopped listening to the playerbase they already had and turned it into a WoW clone with a Star Wars skin.  The community died, my interest was lost and now, the game itself has closed down.

Mass Effect 3 however, is a single story.  It is much more like a book or a film whilst an MMO is more like a traitional, pen and paper or tabletop RPG.  You don't go to your favourite author or director and say 'Change this about this book/film you released' and expect them to actually do it.  It just won't happen.  Mass Effect: Deception was a special case that I don't know the details about so I can't comment on why it was a special case.

The book was terribly recieved, had a laundry list of plotholes and inconsistancies, and was a insult to ME lore.  Some would argue this is the same case with the games ending.  Still, endings have been changed in films and novels before in a number of different ways.  Harry Potter was originally slated to die but test audiences were against it.  In Clerks, the same thing was going to happen to the main character, but audiences were against it.  Bladerunner's director cut changed the theme of the entire original film.  The list goes on, with both big and small films and novels benefiting from test audiences and after release reactions

J.K. Rowling didn't release a version that had Harry die, then change it due to fan outcry.  As far as I know, with Clerks, that was changed before release.  With things like directors cuts, it's a little different.  Do they change things because of fan outcry or because the directors feel that things should have been different to how they were released?  Look at Star Wars for a prime example, George Lucas refuses to changing it back to Han shooting first as was in the original because it doesn't fit how he wants the film to be, despite a huge fan reaction against it.  And that changes hardly anything in the story.

Ever heard of the great writer Charles Dickens who wrote Great Expectations. He actually rewrote the ending to that story do to fan feed back. No one bashes on him for compromising his "artisitc integrity", he is viewed as one of the best authors of his time.

He is not one of the best authors because he changed an ending. He has written many good works, some of them liked more than others. Bioware have created many great products some of which are liked more than others. They do not have to change the last 10 minutes of one of their products to remain a great developer and have a history of creating great products. The same principle applies to Dickens, he would still be classed as a one of best authors even if had not changed that one particular ending.

[Transgirlgamer]

Keldaurz wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

(snip)

What I am talking about in the quoted post is how SWTOR is different to ME3.  In an MMO, player/developer interaction is different to in a, mostly, single player game.  That's all I was trying to say, the rest was my reasoning behind it.

But your reasons are just made up by the moment. Feedback is always useful for developers because when you make a product, you want to know what was spot on and what was way off in order to growth as a developer. It's basic, you just wanted to assume stories can't be affected by players, viewers and or readers, when reality actually proves you are wrong and that's why there are "testers" for everything before releasing.

I agree that feedback is useful for developers, I'm saying that it's used in different ways for MMO's than it is for single player games.  And I know that stories of every variety can be affected by alpha and beta testers/readers/viewers.  I believe that ME3 either didn't go through those stages (which I highly doubt) had alpha and beta testers that, for the most part, didn't make any complaints about the endings (which is possible as alpha and beta testers are a fairly small group of people, but again I think unlikely) or, for some reason, their concerns about the ending wasn't given as much weight as they should have been. (This is the option I'd personally go for)

But all of this happened before release.  All I'm saying really is that people shouldn't expect Bioware to go back and change the ending of ME3 because of reaction after it's release, or at least not for free.  If the playerbase was going to pay for the time of the writers, programmers, artists, voice actors and everyone else that would be involved in remaking even just  the last short section of ME3 so that it fit, then I would be there, cash in proverbial hand with them, suggesting what should be done.  And if Bioware took that money to do the work, then I would expect to feel that I have at least been listened to.  But until that movement happens, I'm content to give my constructive criticism so that in future, they can not make the same mistakes again.

[xHarrison23]

Stanley Woo wrote...

we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. .

Obviosuly you need our opinion because the general consensus is that the ending sucked. Man up, say it sucked and move along. Maybe if you used fan feed back for creating the story, there wouldn't be a massive amount of plot holes because it seems the fans follow and care about your story more.

[xHarrison23]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

He is not one of the best authors because he changed an ending. He has written many good works, some of them liked more than others. Bioware have created many great products some of which are liked more than others. They do not have to change the last 10 minutes of one of their products to remain a great developer and have a history of creating great products. The same principle applies to Dickens, he would still be classed as a one of best authors even if had not changed that one particular ending.

Exactly, Bioware will still be known as a great developer so why not change the ending then? Like Dickens, they will still remain veiwed as great writers. They messed up, now own up to it.

[Dragoonlordz]

xHarrison23 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

He is not one of the best authors because he changed an ending. He has written many good works, some of them liked more than others. Bioware have created many great products some of which are liked more than others. They do not have to change the last 10 minutes of one of their products to remain a great developer and have a history of creating great products. The same principle applies to Dickens, he would still be classed as a one of best authors even if had not changed that one particular ending.

Exactly, Bioware will still be known as a great developer so why not change the ending then? Like Dickens, they will still remain veiwed as great writers. They messed up, now own up to it.

They will still be even if don't so why bother invest so vast amount of money and time into that element when many (even if not yourself) said that they are happy with Biowares solution of elucidation and additional cinematics etc which clarifys and makes it more personal.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 07:20 .

[Njald]

FOX216BC wrote...

@Dragoonlordz  Please stop posting over and over again.
I have seen you do it in many other topics as well.
Clearly you don't agree with most people in this topic.
A reasonable person would simply move to another a topic.
Preferably one to his/her liking.

Don't you see the irony in what you are doing here.
I'll give you a hint "vocal minority", keyword "vocal"

Dragoonlordz needs to be very prolific and vocal otherwise he/she might find it lonely back in camp-"omg, I must correct everyone on the entire internet about how right I am in my ludicrous opinions"  
I don't know if it's confirmation bias or just that avatar but Dragoonlordz is in Every thread spouting hyperbole about the retakers or being personally offended that we don't love the piece of crap ending like she/he does.    
Really tenacious in her/his quest for worse content and poor gameplay. I guess EA found it's core audeince, people who think like XboxLive players trashtalk.

[crimzontearz]

alright so wait a second Mr Woo

1: the "failure to communicate properly" defense is faulty. As you know there are scores of threads and posts that are well written, thought of, NON-harsh and to the point about where and why the endings fell short and provide feedback of the same quality as the the critique. in THIS case that defense feels hollow. Also this was done before through a similar, albeit smaller, debacle regarding NG+ in ME2. Feedback was asked for, given and NG+ was re-instated in the game and everyone was happy (yet execution was a little off but that is no one's fault really...it was improved in ME3 using further feedback)

2: if you do not survey with the fans do you survey with the rest of the staff? are you telling me upon being told "this is the ending" NO ONE from the staff raised their hands and said something along the lines of "uhhh...guys this feels like giving a giant middle finger to the fans. Also I thought we were supposed to deliver varied endings"? or is it that no one but a couple of people really knew what the end was gonna be like until it was done? (which I am sorry to say it is beginning to sound VERY likely)

[Dragoonlordz]

Njald wrote...

FOX216BC wrote...

@Dragoonlordz  Please stop posting over and over again.
I have seen you do it in many other topics as well.
Clearly you don't agree with most people in this topic.
A reasonable person would simply move to another a topic.
Preferably one to his/her liking.

Don't you see the irony in what you are doing here.
I'll give you a hint "vocal minority", keyword "vocal"

Dragoonlordz needs to be very prolific and vocal otherwise he/she might find it lonely back in camp-"omg, I must correct everyone on the entire internet about how right I am in my ludicrous opinions"  
I don't know if it's confirmation bias or just that avatar but Dragoonlordz is in Every thread spouting hyperbole about the retakers or being personally offended that we don't love the piece of crap ending like she/he does.    
Really tenacious in her/his quest for worse content and poor gameplay. I guess EA found it's core audeince, people who think like XboxLive players trashtalk.

Personal attack vs topic of discussion, thanks reported.

[IanPolaris]

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.

Pfft.  Really?  You team never thought to focus group important parts fo the game LIKE THE ENDING to see how your customers would react?  Really?  If you didn't, that IMHO is simple incompetance.

-Polaris

[Transgirlgamer]

Ownedbacon wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Keldaurz 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.

Tell that to the quest surveys on SWTOR.

AN MMO game is a different thing to a stand alone game.  An MMO game is a continuous experience that relies on the players to make up a lot of it's content.  By that, I don't mean it's story or quests, I mean the community of the game which people interact with every time they log onto the servers.  I have stopped playing MMO games as I haven't enjoyed the community the players and developers working together had built.  The first MMO I played was Star Wars Galaxies and I got into it because I really enjoyed the community, despite the repetatie grinding.  Until SOE stopped listening to the playerbase they already had and turned it into a WoW clone with a Star Wars skin.  The community died, my interest was lost and now, the game itself has closed down.

Mass Effect 3 however, is a single story.  It is much more like a book or a film whilst an MMO is more like a traitional, pen and paper or tabletop RPG.  You don't go to your favourite author or director and say 'Change this about this book/film you released' and expect them to actually do it.  It just won't happen.  Mass Effect: Deception was a special case that I don't know the details about so I can't comment on why it was a special case.

Regarding Mass Effect: Deception
http://kotaku.com/58...a-ton-of-errors
https://docs.google....?pli=1&sle=true

First, thank you for the links.  They've cleared up for me why Deception was a special case.

Basically it's because Deception had things that were in direct conflict with established canon.  In a book that's part of a series, that is something that should have been caught by the editors before it even went to press.  That it wasn't, is was really sloppy on their part.

ME3 is different as (as far as I can recall) nothing happens that is in direct conflict with established canon.  It's entirely possible that the godchild is somehow in the citadel somewhere we've never been before, or even it's a group of programmes in it's systems somewhere.  To paraphrase something I said in a post that said gay men shouldn't be in ME3 because they're not in the first two games, just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  And the same can be said for anything that is introduced in ME3, as far as I can remember.

As for the Catalyst, its existence contradicts Sovereign's duties as Vanguard. As vanguard its job was to monitor organic life and send a signal to the Citadel to open the mass relay when the races were advanced enough. The Catalyst says the Citadel "is a part of me" why did it let the Protheans reprogram the keepers? Why did it not take on the duties of vanguard since it could have monitored organic life (it knows a lot about what is going on in the universe) and opened the relay itself. This would have been a far better trap and I doubt the races would have had any clue as to what was going on. Having Sovereign in the Milky Way seems like it could possibly give away its plan and fail (much like what happened in ME1). People say that the Catalyst had no control but it created the Reapers and through the Crucible was able to relinquish control to Shepard. The Catalyst just raises more questions unnecessarily that could have been avoided by not including it as a godlike character. It should have just been a tool for the Reapers not their creator. I would say it would have made more sense for it to be an AI that is the Citadel and uses keepers to maintain itself. As for activating the Crucible it maybe helps you out on account of the Prothean sabotage.

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.

[xHarrison23]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

xHarrison23 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

He is not one of the best authors because he changed an ending. He has written many good works, some of them liked more than others. Bioware have created many great products some of which are liked more than others. They do not have to change the last 10 minutes of one of their products to remain a great developer and have a history of creating great products. The same principle applies to Dickens, he would still be classed as a one of best authors even if had not changed that one particular ending.

Exactly, Bioware will still be known as a great developer so why not change the ending then? Like Dickens, they will still remain veiwed as great writers. They messed up, now own up to it.

They will still be even if don't so why bother invest so vast amount of money and time into that element when many (even if not yourself) said that they are happy with Biowares solution of elucidation and additional cinematics etc which clarifys and makes it more personal.

Because their fans have given them billions of dollars and they are upset. What happened when appeasing your fans was the nice thing to do?

[crappyjazzy]

DreamTension wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Alamar2078 wrote...

I imagine if there was a survey they would be expected to publish results ... results that they may or may not like. Even if the survey went BW's way I wouldn't really "believe" it personally

There is no reason to publish a poll or survey with this fanbase. They dismiss anything they don't agree with. Especially the anti-ending crowd. The majority of this very thread shows this with all the whining about not listening to them when the fact is they did listen, they just chose a different solution, a solution for some of their own group asked for. Giving the tin foil hat mentality for some of this fanbase they would scream and hiss BW or EA paid off x, y or z if did not go in their favor.

By anti-enders, you mean the vocal minority or the vast majority?  There have been enough polls showing that the majority of the fans do not like the ending.  Hey, here's one via CNET.  

That proves that the majority of the responders to that poll do not like the ending.  And that's all it proves.

[Dragoonlordz]

xHarrison23 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

xHarrison23 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

He is not one of the best authors because he changed an ending. He has written many good works, some of them liked more than others. Bioware have created many great products some of which are liked more than others. They do not have to change the last 10 minutes of one of their products to remain a great developer and have a history of creating great products. The same principle applies to Dickens, he would still be classed as a one of best authors even if had not changed that one particular ending.

Exactly, Bioware will still be known as a great developer so why not change the ending then? Like Dickens, they will still remain veiwed as great writers. They messed up, now own up to it.

They will still be even if don't so why bother invest so vast amount of money and time into that element when many (even if not yourself) said that they are happy with Biowares solution of elucidation and additional cinematics etc which clarifys and makes it more personal.

Because their fans have given them billions of dollars and they are upset. What happened when appeasing your fans was the nice thing to do?

Many fans will continue to give them millions/billions of dollars. Some fans will not give them more, other fans will take their place. Every single title these days has people spouting the end of Bioware and that they made Bioware, when they leave when their demands are not met year on year Bioware make more sales. Even with DA2 they made more profit even if never made more sales due to time and money invested. This is not going to change in the short term and noone knows the long term. They make assumptions based on their bias of their own feelings for regard to long term success. Ones unhappy will spout how its all doom and gloom for Bioware while those who are happy or more in control of their hurt feelings will state how things are fine for Bioware.

[Ownedbacon]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Keldaurz 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.

Tell that to the quest surveys on SWTOR.

AN MMO game is a different thing to a stand alone game.  An MMO game is a continuous experience that relies on the players to make up a lot of it's content.  By that, I don't mean it's story or quests, I mean the community of the game which people interact with every time they log onto the servers.  I have stopped playing MMO games as I haven't enjoyed the community the players and developers working together had built.  The first MMO I played was Star Wars Galaxies and I got into it because I really enjoyed the community, despite the repetatie grinding.  Until SOE stopped listening to the playerbase they already had and turned it into a WoW clone with a Star Wars skin.  The community died, my interest was lost and now, the game itself has closed down.

Mass Effect 3 however, is a single story.  It is much more like a book or a film whilst an MMO is more like a traitional, pen and paper or tabletop RPG.  You don't go to your favourite author or director and say 'Change this about this book/film you released' and expect them to actually do it.  It just won't happen.  Mass Effect: Deception was a special case that I don't know the details about so I can't comment on why it was a special case.

Regarding Mass Effect: Deception
http://kotaku.com/58...a-ton-of-errors
https://docs.google....?pli=1&sle=true

First, thank you for the links.  They've cleared up for me why Deception was a special case.

Basically it's because Deception had things that were in direct conflict with established canon.  In a book that's part of a series, that is something that should have been caught by the editors before it even went to press.  That it wasn't, is was really sloppy on their part.

ME3 is different as (as far as I can recall) nothing happens that is in direct conflict with established canon.  It's entirely possible that the godchild is somehow in the citadel somewhere we've never been before, or even it's a group of programmes in it's systems somewhere.  To paraphrase something I said in a post that said gay men shouldn't be in ME3 because they're not in the first two games, just because we haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  And the same can be said for anything that is introduced in ME3, as far as I can remember.

As for the Catalyst, its existence contradicts Sovereign's duties as Vanguard. As vanguard its job was to monitor organic life and send a signal to the Citadel to open the mass relay when the races were advanced enough. The Catalyst says the Citadel "is a part of me" why did it let the Protheans reprogram the keepers? Why did it not take on the duties of vanguard since it could have monitored organic life (it knows a lot about what is going on in the universe) and opened the relay itself. This would have been a far better trap and I doubt the races would have had any clue as to what was going on. Having Sovereign in the Milky Way seems like it could possibly give away its plan and fail (much like what happened in ME1). People say that the Catalyst had no control but it created the Reapers and through the Crucible was able to relinquish control to Shepard. The Catalyst just raises more questions unnecessarily that could have been avoided by not including it as a godlike character. It should have just been a tool for the Reapers not their creator. I would say it would have made more sense for it to be an AI that is the Citadel and uses keepers to maintain itself. As for activating the Crucible it maybe helps you out on account of the Prothean sabotage.

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.

Edit: It refers to the reapers as "my" solution but then says "we" when referring to how they stop the creator/created conflict.

Modifié par Ownedbacon, 12 avril 2012 - 07:35 .

[Kajan451]

count_4 wrote...

Because they would have to accept the results as truth.

They know very well whats the truth. They might run around and tell people that "this is just a vocal minority", but there is a reason Television Quotas are measured by statistics. Its why there are things like Nielson Families. Its because all you really need is a vocal minority to gauge the responses of the majority.

It might be inaccurate and bring you the 20ths episode of Big Brother, where everyone is wondering "who the hell watches that boring stuff", but in the end they don't need to hold a poll, if you have one on this very message board having 50k votes going for "the ending sucks", against like 1 or 2k votes saying "it doesn't".

You don't need to be a math genius or in the entertainment industry to realize that even if its just a "vocal minority" in the pool of the mass of gamers, but if results are this clear cut in the minority you can't expect it to be much better than with the majority.

Its not like people were organizing some email string to get 50k people register here and say "it sucks"... it happens that because it sucks 50k people came here. And we, who came, are just those that cared enough to come. The majority doesn't care enough to waste their time here.

If the game would be amazing, the very same amount of people would have come here to praise it, instead of complain about it. The Minority they like to use to discount peoples opinions with, is actually very much a representation of the whole player pool. Just like Nielson Families are a good representation of the TV ratings and preferances of people.

Of course it shouldn't be your only source for input, but except for Nielson Families and Vocal Minorities AKA Fans there isn't much else, except maybe taking to the street.

But they probably know from people like me, who have their game feedback on, that have played ME2 multiple times (thanks to the gamefeedback) but have played the singleplayer only once. That is also a "feedback" they receive.


That said... even if they did a survey... would you really, at this point, believe the numbers they give? I mean, we've been lied to all along with ME3.. so why should i believe in a survey they took themselves. Either way, they are in a no win situation and the survey is just not worth the effort.


They didn't just drop the ball on this one, they actually droped it off a cliff into a vulcano. All that remains to be seen is if they can manage to convince me to play with them in the future.

Modifié par Kajan451, 12 avril 2012 - 07:32 .

[Dragoonlordz]

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.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 07:34 .

[mauro2222]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Personal attack vs topic of discussion, thanks reported.

Quick, somebody call the police! THEY'RE ATTACKING ME!