7 réponses à ce sujet

[katamuro]

They didnt know there would be such a demand for it? Really? Come on if you have at least tried to listen to the fans even before the release of the game you would KNOW for 100%. 
This just makes me angry, really angry. Is it another excuse or did they really think that the horrible horrible mess thet  created would go down well with fans?
I hope the extended cut is good otherwise if they create another abomination...
I just dont want to imagine what will happen. But it would be bad, very bad move.


 www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-11-mass-effect-3-extended-cut-adds-player-personalisation-to-endings

[Stanley Woo]

Not doing what you want us to do, and not agreeing with our decisions, does not mean we have stopped listening. It is possible to completely disagree with you while still taking your feedback into account.

[Stanley Woo]

sdfgdsfsdfsfs wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Not doing what you want us to do, and not agreeing with our decisions, does not mean we have stopped listening. It is possible to completely disagree with you while still taking your feedback into account.

It's possible to disagree, but a lot of the "issues" people raised with the ending are extremely legitimate, and to say that you "completely disagree" with those legitimate points is... troubling, to say the least.

And having a difference of opinion has absolutely no effect on the "legitimacy" of those issues. If you dislike X in a game, my saying "I disagree with you" has no effect on your opinion. It has no effect on BioWare already choosing to create clarification DLC. It doesn't make me right, it doesn't make you wrong. The only reason people want BioWare to (or me) to agree is to give you more ammunition to say "see? even Stanley Woo agrees with this!" or "even BioWare agrees. this proves we are right!" which does nothing except, well, make you feel better about being right.

But I'm not going to provide answers that will only be used to be either wielded as a weapon or given as proof that we hate you, because neither is conducive to productive discussion.

[Allan Schumacher]

I like you a lot Stanley, but in this you are wrong.

You may be listening. Someone may even be writing down everything we say, but you are hardly taking our feeback into account.

To provide an example:

Someone may provide a very good piece of feedback on an issue, but it may not thematically go along with other ideas that have been envisioned. People will look at the feedback, and critically assess how that feedback can exist beside other decisions. After examining the feedback, it's determined that it undermines the other changes in plan, so it is not utilized.

The feedback is not used as the creators disagree with the author that it's valid, but that doesn't mean the feedback was not taken into account during the decision process.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 avril 2012 - 06:15 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Oldbones2 wrote...

Instead perhaps you guys could have said something more like, "give us your feedback, we'll look it over however none of it can clash with our original intent and/or add new ideas that go against the vision we have for the ending, which has yet to be explained to the fans."


You know, so we wouldn't have wasted time and energy writing pages of stuff that you would immediately dismiss and instead focus asking for things you would actually consider.


Maybe if someone could have explained the ideas that were invisioned in detail, say on the forum or at PAX east, we would actually have a better idea of whats on the table.

My assumption is that part of it is probably based on collating the feedback.  When I say "vision" I'm not restricting BioWare to only utilizing the vision that was established prerelease.  I'm assuming that the ME team is going to have some goals for the DLC, and part of what those goals are is going to based upon the issues reported.  So when I say that a piece of feedback may not fall in line with the vision, it doesn't prevent the notion the ME team disagrees on a piece of feedback because it goes against other feedback.

Do you guys really think that letting us just shoot around in the dark with no idea of what you accept and what you dismiss is going to net you a profitable trove of data for what we want in the EE DLC?

I think placing parameters on what people give as feedback would alienate anyone that feels that the parameters do not fall in line with what their grievances are (we already see this with Gamble's explanation of what the DLC will cover).  It skews the honesty of the feedback, because words are funny things and people may read too much or too little into them, especially once they get tossed into the Shark Tank.  The parameters get muddied by the interpretations of those they are given to and propagated throughout the tubes.

Although now that I think about it, I'd argue that Gamble actually did provide a set of parameters to help direct feedback with his explanation of what the DLC will cover.  So in this sense, writing feedback that is "I hate Star Child!  Get rid of him!" is not bad feedback, it probably won't contribute much to the ending DLC.  Although saying "I hate Star Child!  His explanation of <blah> is stupid!" does provide some additional feedback that may contribute to it.  While on the other hand, stating "I am really concerned about what happened to the Galaxy in the aftermath.  With the destruction of the relays and the fleet stranded, it was a real disheartening experience and while I am okay with Shepard making tough choices, not knowing how it turns out makes it hard to feel like it was even worth it" provides a feedback that files in line perfectly with the parameters Gamble stated.

[Allan Schumacher]

Lavans6879 wrote...

Please clarify. Is it the "creators" that disagree, or is it the EA overlords that disagree?

I find it difficult to believe that BioWare had full control over the story and ending of Mass Effect 3, especially considering how BioWare was known for it's excellent story telling prior to being absorbed into EA's monopoly.

Unfortunately this isn't something I can possibly answer.  Not because I'm not allowed to, but because I typically don't interact with EA employees that aren't also BioWare employees.  I set up a build remotely once for David Silverman.  Seemed like a nice enough fellow.

I feel that BioWare is willing to accept their responsibility for the issues our games have, which I thought was put forward pretty well when Mike Laidlaw when he spoke in May last year in response to DA2.  /shrug

The fans are like vulchers, ready to prey on your every word until theres nothing left.

Perhaps I should have been asking myself "Why do I hate myself?"

The problem is this still begits a value of what you want to do, over
what those who pay your check want you to do.  Sorry, but I can not
agree with this line of thought.  I can understand if there's
technical limitations, or the cost is too high, or it takes way too long
to implement, but "nah, that conflicts with my personal vision" is not
acceptable.

I think this is muddy territory.  It really looks like you're suggesting that we shouldn't bother doing what we want to do, but should cater our games to the people that would give us money.  This retroactively assumes that the entire Mass Effect franchise was not something that BioWare wanted to make.  I think one of the worst things you can do is make game developers make a game that they don't want to make.

I see far too much passion, enthusiasm, hardwork, and commitment from my coworkers in Edmonton to assume that we aren't making what we want to make.  I've only been with the company since 2009, but I'd be skeptical that any of the BioWare games were in any way games that the BioWare studio didn't want to make.  I'd go as far as saying that BioWare was so good at making games that they wanted to make, that it reflected in their quality and helped build the fanbase I'm talking with right now.

[Allan Schumacher]

But the goal of the DLC is clearly to
uphold the tone, message and themes of the original ending (singular,
because well, you know), your blog posts made that abundantly clear when
you wrote it down TWICE.  And (I'm guessing) that you decided fairly
early on that you were merely going to clarify, but not change the
existing ending.  This would lead me to assume that you let fans give
you tons of complaints and suggestions for weeks that you could never
address or implement, because they were simply unfeasable with the
current endings).

I wouldn't presume to make any assumptions about when they made a decision that they were only going to clarify.  I didn't know what their plans were until I saw the announcement.

Furthermore, complaints are still valid perspective even if they don't get applied specifically to this DLC.  I don't know what sort of factors played into making the decision.

Constructive feedback may be more
pleasent to hear, but weren't you just asking for more honesty up above,
when thousands of your fans say something sucks, you don't need that
phrased in a constructive way to figure out what the problem is.  It's
pretty clear. 

I think my point may have been missed here.  You were saying that you would have liked some sort of parameters to base your feedback on.  I was saying that Gamble has now presented some.  I don't think that that makes the concerns mentioned prior to Gamble's announcement invalid, but the examples that I provided were along the lines of what type of feedback I would consider useful, based on the parameters Gamble has recently put forth.  I think that Gamble's announcement is the "tell us what type of feedback you think is relevant" that you seemed to be hoping for.


Allan

[John Epler]

I am serious. And don't call me Shirley... wait.

Anyways, this thread has gone off the rails, tumbled down an embankment and spilled several thousand gallons of highly toxic material into the groundwater supply for the orphanage. So I'm locking it.