486 réponses à ce sujet

[GuardianAngel470]

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.

Yes it is Stanley. There's a word for that. It's called "Ignoring." To "listen" to feedback and produce the complete opossite of what that feedback wants is called "Ignoring feedback."

You wonder why we say you didn't listen? It's because we have been "Ignored."

Your compatriots may be "fixing" the ending, but it still feels to us like we are being "ignored". This is because we have stated clearly that the ending does not work as is and cannot be clarified to make it work, and the co-founder of the company has told us that they won't change it but instead add clarity.

We have been and are being Ignored. Don't expect us to change that position until we get some actual communication/evidence that we aren't. So far we haven't received any.

Good day Stanley.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 13 avril 2012 - 06:44 .

[Scoob]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

No, what Bioware is doing is ignoring all the points that have been made over the last few weeks, and instead choose to adress us as a "minority" with complaints over "closure and clarity". They choose to continuously ignore the complaints about the false advertising, the on-disc DLC, the plotholes, the lack of choice, the broken promises, and yet they love to boast about review scores and sales, and point to the small amount off ******** that behave badly to make us look bad.

Everything Bioware has said and done since the release of ME3 shows they are NOT taking our complaints into consideration, so once Bioware stops hiding behind "artistic integrity", grows some balls and makes a statement saying "We messed up and we're sorry", THEN we'll start pretending Bioware is actually listening.

[Fishy]

if 100,000+ people hate the ending of Mass Effect 3 does that make it a truth known by actual experience or observation or a belief or judgment that rest on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

The fact ..
100,000 + people hate the ending of Mass Effect 3

The Opinion ..
That the ending of Mass Effect 3 suck.

The Bioware
We Listen

Modifié par Suprez30, 13 avril 2012 - 06:56 .

[LucasShark]

ShepardTheHopeful wrote...

Eyeshield21 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.

I have a question: Did the entire ME team support the endings? Cause there has got to have been some that didn't like it or felt uneasy with it.

Yeah I want to know the answer to this too! Because from what I heard the ending was the work of two men. My favorite writers of the team weren't even involved or had a say. Is that true?

I've been asking that since the very inception of this trainwreck.

[The Angry One]

LucasShark wrote...

ShepardTheHopeful wrote...

Eyeshield21 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.

I have a question: Did the entire ME team support the endings? Cause there has got to have been some that didn't like it or felt uneasy with it.

Yeah I want to know the answer to this too! Because from what I heard the ending was the work of two men. My favorite writers of the team weren't even involved or had a say. Is that true?

I've been asking that since the very inception of this trainwreck.

I doubt you'll ever get an answer to this, I'm sure they have policy in place to prevent any signs of disgreement from within the team.
Though Weekes' attempts to steer the endings away from the near total nihilism Walters clearly intended for it in that interview says enough to me.

[Lavans6879]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Lavans6879 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

Shhhh

Don't speak bad of the overlords!

Lol 

Still, sarcasm aside, I'm sure that I'm not the only one that's curious about this. Rainbow colored space magic endings aside, I say this because BioWare also promised closure, which obviously did not happen for many of the topics in the current ME universe. In many respects, a lot of the topics that were introduced in ME1 and ME2 doesn't even need to have closure during the ending of the game. Knowing EA, and knowing how EA likes to nickle and dime their customers, I see the poorly written chain of events, lack of closure, and glaring plot holes as a means for EA to force BioWare to exploit more money out of their customers. Heck, ME3 had day 1 paid DLC, with said DLC being fairly important to the main storyline. BioWare also announced in advance that paid DLC was already being planned at least a good month or two before ME3 was even released.

So, I would like to repeat the question. Was the poorly written ending, lack of closure, glaring plot holes, and blatant cold shoulder to paying customers something that BioWare took upon themselves, or was it because of EA?

[Oldbones2]

Lavans6879 wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Lavans6879 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

Shhhh

Don't speak bad of the overlords!

Lol 

Still, sarcasm aside, I'm sure that I'm not the only one that's curious about this. Rainbow colored space magic endings aside, I say this because BioWare also promised closure, which obviously did not happen for many of the topics in the current ME universe. In many respects, a lot of the topics that were introduced in ME1 and ME2 doesn't even need to have closure during the ending of the game. Knowing EA, and knowing how EA likes to nickle and dime their customers, I see the poorly written chain of events, lack of closure, and glaring plot holes as a means for EA to force BioWare to exploit more money out of their customers. Heck, ME3 had day 1 paid DLC, with said DLC being fairly important to the main storyline. BioWare also announced in advance that paid DLC was already being planned at least a good month or two before ME3 was even released.

So, I would like to repeat the question. Was the poorly written ending, lack of closure, glaring plot holes, and blatant cold shoulder to paying customers something that BioWare took upon themselves, or was it because of EA?

People would literally be fired for answering your question.

[Nostradamoose]

Oldbones2 wrote...

Lavans6879 wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Lavans6879 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

Shhhh

Don't speak bad of the overlords!

Lol 

Still, sarcasm aside, I'm sure that I'm not the only one that's curious about this. Rainbow colored space magic endings aside, I say this because BioWare also promised closure, which obviously did not happen for many of the topics in the current ME universe. In many respects, a lot of the topics that were introduced in ME1 and ME2 doesn't even need to have closure during the ending of the game. Knowing EA, and knowing how EA likes to nickle and dime their customers, I see the poorly written chain of events, lack of closure, and glaring plot holes as a means for EA to force BioWare to exploit more money out of their customers. Heck, ME3 had day 1 paid DLC, with said DLC being fairly important to the main storyline. BioWare also announced in advance that paid DLC was already being planned at least a good month or two before ME3 was even released.

So, I would like to repeat the question. Was the poorly written ending, lack of closure, glaring plot holes, and blatant cold shoulder to paying customers something that BioWare took upon themselves, or was it because of EA?

People would literally be fired for answering your question.

Yep, Matter of fact, if I had my say on that, I'd advise any employee in any company never to answer such a question. It's bad Business.

[Giskler]

I'd be a lot more reassured if they put Weekes in charge of the EC.

[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.

[Lavans6879]

Oldbones2 wrote...

People would literally be fired for answering your question.

That's perfectly fine. I don't think anyone honestly expects the question to be answered. It's safe to assume that the majority of the people with a level head on their shoulders already knows what the answer is.

With that said, I'm going to take a step back for a moment. My primary interest in games has always been multiplayer games. Story was never important to me, because IMHO, the gameplay is where it's at. However, in my 20 years of gaming, there has only ever been 3 franchises that has ever caught my interest when it comes to lore - Elder Scrolls, StarCraft, and Mass Effect. Honestly, me giving praise to a single player game, much less spending over 200 hours in a single player game is a rarity. Mass Effect totally had me sold with it's characters, story, and role play elements.

However, Mass Effect 3 is the epitome of everything I dispise about modern day single player games. Too much time was spent on the gameplay aspect, which is evident in the lack of role play, diversity, and story. Furthermore, there's no doubt that ME3 was designed so that purchasing DLC was mandatory in order to experience the whole story, which is in contradiction to the expectations set by BioWare's prior promises.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 had artistic integrity. Mass Effect 3 does not. I'd say that it's a fairly safe assumption that EA is only interested in milking the Mass Effect franchise, rather than providing satisfaction to the fans of the now debunked BioWare.

[ZiegenkonigIII]

Exeider wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Opsrbest wrote...

Whats with the ever increasing time delay? Are people on separate ME fields or something?

Different countries, different time zones, different people, different lives.

and different universes, which means somewhere........out there

.....is a universe......

........where ME3's ending.......

.......doesn't suck.


-AE

 
I don't want to live in this universe anymore.

Modifié par ZiegenkonigIII, 13 avril 2012 - 07:36 .

[thefallen2far]

What are the themes? What are the expectations? What are your intentions? Those are the things that are so frustrating about this... and I'm sure the frustration is on both sides. There's such a HUGE disconnect between the creators and the fans right now that it's hard to really grasp common ground.

We thought we knew the themes, the expectations, the intentions, the goal through the story we were playing.... but then, supposedly, the ending was the personification of what you were going for, and it hit us asking ourselves, "what just happened?" Everything we thought was the theme of the game or the direction of the game was obviously wrong, but it was only wrong for the 10 minutes of the end. Even in the interviews, we thought you knew what we were looking forward to... but that ending was so out of place, you have to wonder what the goal really was.  I mean, I'd love to hear someone, anyone at Bioware just say WHY they're holding onto this ending so tightly as it sinks the ship. I get artistic vision for artistic visions' sake... it's called pride.  You love what you did and you want to stick with it.  You think it's great and you want to hold onto it. Either you really believe this ending is great and are shocked that it's a running gag at your local game shop, or it's too late and too expensive to make the changes.

The middle ground is coming out with a press release as to what you were going for.... because we missed it. And I know that you think that "Clarification" will clear that up.... the fact that it's so disjointed kinda hints we really don't know where you're coming from.  Clarification is just really like explaining the perks of someone's politics to someone with different set of politics.  It's a fight that ends in "well we're just going to have to agree to disagree" and everyone goes their seperate ways until the next election.  [I just finished watching Daily show on my laptop.... it's a little fresh in my mind]

We want to enjoy the game. We want to find a way to accept the ending.... that's why Indoc Theory is so popular.... it's a way or us to hold onto our perception of what the game was without completely ignoring what was happening or what was in front of us. We literally think that believing the whole ending was a dream is more in line to our perception of the story, but the semantics outside the story we were perceiving [your vision, your budget, your theme, your intention] is the only reason it doesn't work.

I don't know.... it's late and I've been up for 20 hours.... I'm already psyched from the Bulls game today, but I'm really tired right now. I hope you can pull off a miracle and convince everyone that hated the ending that they were wrong. George Lucas has been trying to do so for the last 15 years about Phantom Menace.... maybe you'll fare better.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 13 avril 2012 - 08:02 .

[Oldbones2]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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). 

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.

I can't argue with the logic of this.  By keeping the field open you have completely removed yourself from interfering with our input. 

But you didn't do this.

Instead for weeks after the endings, fans begged for any response from Bioware and nothing official was given.  Instead we got teasing tweets from Jessica and Mike that implied all was not as it appeared and we should hold onto our saves forever (this was at a time when people weren't just deleting saves, they were returning the entire game for a refund).
Around a week and a half after the the US release Casey Hudson released a statement that peripherally addressed the ending.  Of course people picked this apart.  It was the only official statment from Bioware they had received.  And it was full of double talk and sidestepping.  (and please don't argue this wasn't, even you at BW were displeased with it, otherwise Ray M. would never have released another statement on the following Tues.)

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.

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. 

Please keep in mind you're asking for honestly and constructive feedback while telling us that we have misinterpreted the endings, but you refuse to help us understand them.  Constructive feedback only works when both parties are on the same page.

Again, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me.  I can't tell you how much it means to me, but well, a lot.  It means a lot.

[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.

[Oldbones2]

Lavans6879 wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

People would literally be fired for answering your question.

That's perfectly fine. I don't think anyone honestly expects the question to be answered. It's safe to assume that the majority of the people with a level head on their shoulders already knows what the answer is.

With that said, I'm going to take a step back for a moment. My primary interest in games has always been multiplayer games. Story was never important to me, because IMHO, the gameplay is where it's at. However, in my 20 years of gaming, there has only ever been 3 franchises that has ever caught my interest when it comes to lore - Elder Scrolls, StarCraft, and Mass Effect. Honestly, me giving praise to a single player game, much less spending over 200 hours in a single player game is a rarity. Mass Effect totally had me sold with it's characters, story, and role play elements.

However, Mass Effect 3 is the epitome of everything I dispise about modern day single player games. Too much time was spent on the gameplay aspect, which is evident in the lack of role play, diversity, and story. Furthermore, there's no doubt that ME3 was designed so that purchasing DLC was mandatory in order to experience the whole story, which is in contradiction to the expectations set by BioWare's prior promises.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 had artistic integrity. Mass Effect 3 does not. I'd say that it's a fairly safe assumption that EA is only interested in milking the Mass Effect franchise, rather than providing satisfaction to the fans of the now debunked BioWare.

Have you tried Baldur's Gate 1 and 2?

They are to this day, my favorite games overall.

(ME almost had the title but dropped it at the last minute.)


IF Bioware deliberately allowed part of its game to be compromised in order to meet standards/additions (MP, shooter elements) designed to market the game to a larger crowd, then you could make an argument that they have no artistic integrity.

However I disagree with the people who say this.

Instead I say that the company and many of its employees lack personal integrity, so far other than a few brave moderators, I haven't seen anyone come forward to defend this ending, or apologize to fans who felt mislead by the pre game hype, or try to justify the breaking of so many promises.


While it might be fiscally stupid to do any of the above, the respect I once had for Bioware has mostly melted into comtempt.  How many people cower behind the shield of their company instead of owning up to what they've done?

If they are so proud of this game and this ending, why don't they come out and explain it?

[Metroidvania]

Oldbones2 wrote...

If they are so proud of this game and this ending, why don't they come out and explain it?

They've said before that they don't want to 'prescribe' or force an ending on the fanbase, but rather, leave it open for interpretation, based on the radical differences of the 3 varied endings (on a universe level, probably not on a presentation level).

What I'd like to know is why the final choice of the game, instead of relying on the past conventions of paragon and Renegade like previous games, were taken out/removed for the final choice, and replaced with a much more diluted/muddy set of choices. Additionally, each choice had few clear-cut examples of which decision was aligned with any sort of thematic scale, and were instead based off of half-information, perception based on prior propoganda by plot-important NPCs, and lack of overall explanation. They also didn't leave clear-cut examples of how your different choices affected the universe at large outside of the very broadest terms.

Given as is, the 3 endings are all pretty definitive on what happens to the galaxy at large, at least, in terms of the choice you made. Being actually clear on what just happened afterwards is where interpretation starts, since we lose any real insight into the continuing universe.

Modifié par Metroidvania, 13 avril 2012 - 07:55 .

[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

[karek]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

You understand that that's basically telling people to talk about the gunpowder used in a gun but not the gun itself right?

The starchild itself is as much an issue as EVERYTHING the starchild says. They're inclusive not seperate and you can't fix the plot issues with it's commentary without first retconning to series to provide considerable explanation as to how it's even possible in context.

Saying that the starchild itself is off limits is a clear indicator that bioware does not understand the problems, That they think themselves too clever by half that the comments still condescend to an actually informed and interested base by claiming they didn't understand information that simply didn't exist.

[Lisylis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Serious (but off-topic) question, bro: Has anyone had a little chat to you about your engagement with us plebs? I know you're not involved with ME, which you have been very clear about, but it seems like emotions have been running a little high lately and any consumer contacts seems fraught with peril.

This post sounds remarkably hostile but it's not meant to :s

[Cogneter]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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. 

Allan, I understand that you are not a part of ME team, but I trust you still are somewhat aware of the situation there. I would very much appreciate if you could answer one question: Does BioWare's ME team even have doubts that was they did was right? Don't they even consider that the amount of "Get rid of Star Child!" feedback is so overwhelming that MAYBE, PERHAPS, it WOULD be better for everyone if they just removed him and made a new ending?

[Oldbones2]

And I think you missed my point.

Without additional context that details exactly what is on the table for being changed around in the ending our imput is limited to emotional responses and broad ideas confined within the 'clarify, not change' the ending mandate. This will create a large spectrum of ideas for the dev to pick and choose from in order to create their ending, however it runs counter to the point of this DLC.

You are creating this, (as is my understanding) to satisfy the most dedicated fans who needed more clarity, more closure with the story. And by picking and choosing through a large list of non specific suggestions, you will have more freedom to craft the ending you want.


This is not the time to craft the ending you want.

I know you guys want to work on the games that YOU love. You don't want to be forced to work on a project that is forced on you by someone else.

But you are at work. It is your job.

This DLC is your last chance to win over some of the more ardent fans (not myself, boycotting not ending related) and you have already limited the field by refusing to change the endings.

The way you win back those fans is by giving them the closure they currently lack. Not by crafting another ending you feel is perfect, but by satisfying as many of the specific things they choose.

So you need to tell us what is specifically available, then let us give feedback on THAT. Then you go in and try your best to make as much of it fit as you can. That is the best way to satisfy as many of your fans as possible.

[ShepardTheHopeful]

Ignore my comment don't wanna jinx it. 

Modifié par ShepardTheHopeful, 13 avril 2012 - 08:14 .

[M0keys]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Oh, I believe most of Mass Effect 3 is what the guys on the ME team wanted to make.

But I don't believe for a second that the same men who wrote and approved the rest of the game are proud of that ending.

I'm sure they're forced to for the sake of politics, but no sane man would ever look upon the current ending of Mass Effect 3 with pride. And I do mean no one. It breaks nearly every single rule of storytelling I can think of since the dawn of western civilization. Even David Lynch would be pissed off.

So I don't think Casey Hudson or Mac Walters could've gotten as far as they have if they were truly that foolish.
And they're nowhere near as powerful as George Lucas, so they can't use impossible powers within the industry to completely force themselves on others.

I would like to have sympathy for them, but I don't know who was truly involved, and the corporate beast of EA/Bioware is so big that it completely cuts me off from connecting with the human beings inside it. They're all stuck behind a foggy glass wall, and no one can see what they're feeling or doing unless someone opens a vent and lets a little steam come out for a moment.

Modifié par M0keys, 13 avril 2012 - 08:12 .