486 réponses à ce sujet

[MeldarthX]

twizbuck wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Uhm... what? So this was planned from the start? From before ME3 was released?

It answer your question - in my theory - yes they did....

all the disinformation - the backtracking - everything adds up to - they needed more time to finish the real endings - they wanted Polarised views on the endings...

They wanted debate - they were expecting some people to be upset by the endings; they planned on it - they just never expected most to hate the endings as much as most do.....

they thought they would have time to finish the endings and put them out end of April/beginning of May.....

[jumpingkaede]

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.

Is it?  That sounds... iffy.  

RME: "The Catalyst/Star Kid makes no sense, the narrative completely falls apart, Shepard's sacrifice is shoe-horned and meaningless, and the scene with the Normandy is a huge wtf."

Bioware:  "Hey, thanks.  We're taking your feedback into account but we completely disagree with you."

How does that work?  I get that Bioware gets to completely disagree with its fans if it wants, but then I'm not sure exactly how the feedback is being "taken into account".

MeldarthX wrote...

They wanted debate - they were expecting some people to be upset by the endings; they planned on it - they just never expected most to hate the endings as much as most do.....

That's the most confusing part of this whole incident.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 13 avril 2012 - 02:26 .

[Oldbones2]

jumpingkaede 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.

Is it?  That sounds... iffy.  

RME: "The Catalyst/Star Kid makes no sense, the narrative completely falls apart, Shepard's sacrifice is shoe-horned and meaningless, and the scene with the Normandy is a huge wtf."

Bioware:  "Hey, thanks.  We're taking your feedback into account but we completely disagree with you."

How does that work?  I get that Bioware gets to completely disagree with its fans if it wants, but then I'm not sure exactly how the feedback is being "taken into account".

MeldarthX wrote...

They wanted debate - they were expecting some people to be upset by the endings; they planned on it - they just never expected most to hate the endings as much as most do.....

That's the most confusing part of this whole incident.

It means they'll try and address the problems you had with the ending by making without removing the elements you disliked.  i.e. try and fix the RGC's logic, maybe let you question him (which is pointless if you just go ahead and agree with him anyway) explain why the Normandy was running in the first place (again this is dumb, no explanation except Joker turned coward along with the rest of your crew could make sense, they were all prepared to die, so why would they run?)

In short Bioware is tieing both our hands and their own hands by keeping this ending that doesn't make a whole lot of sense (though some people seem to like it) when they should simply consider an 4th option to refuse or just scrap everything after Anderson, let Shepard die, Crucible fires, epilogue rolls.

But they won't.  Because Shepard's death has to be meaningless and counter to his own stated goal, in order to truely drive home the theme of our inability to have an effect on a huge and indifferent universe.

[jumpingkaede]

Oldbones2 wrote...

But they won't.  Because Shepard's death has to be meaningless and counter to his own stated goal, in order to truely drive home the theme of our inability to have an effect on a huge and indifferent universe.

Given our inability to have an effect on a huge and indifferent corporation...

Art imitating life, eh?  Or the other way around.  I never really understood how to use that phrase.

[Oakenshield1]

wesr wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

Reported Woo for peer review.

That sounds bad. Would that count as an attack on a staff member? Not to mention he's probably the only mod on duty at the moment.

I only reported it as spam. I did say he should be fired though for being an ass and hijacking the thread.

[pfellahX]

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 think it's a little disingenous to dismiss it as "not doing what you want us to do". If you look at the pre-release marketing build-up, there was a full-court press on about how we were going to get a true conclusion to the story (Gamble: you weren't going pull a LOST), how we were going to get dramatically different endings because you weren't beholden to a sequel anymore (Gamble: "bespoke ending" comment; Hudson: "not an A/B/C ending"), how player choice was going to matter, etc. etc. 

So at least pre-release, you guys seemed to understand what the customers wanted out of a conclusion to the trilogy... you "got it". Yet, you delivered NONE of those things with the ending you gave us. You can't possibly look at what was released (an ending where all three options use 98% of the same footage) and say those statements are true. And you talk about "artistic integrity" and say "well, we stand behind our ending, but we'll add some 'closure' and 'clarity'". What about that regular boring kind of integrity where you respect your customer and not promise things that (if this is the ending you envisioned all along) you had no intention of delivering?

This isn't about doing what WE say. This is about doing what YOU said you were going to do, living up to what YOU marketed the game as. If you can't do that... well, fine. All we can do as customers is not buy your products going forward. Which is a shame, because when they're good, they're SOOOO damn good.

Modifié par pfellahX, 13 avril 2012 - 03:08 .

[Snout]

I guess what we can take from this thread is that, in the opinion of the BSN, 'listening' is only listening when you agree with everything the other side says and change your opinion accordingly.

If only politicians were like that.

[jumpingkaede]

pfellahX 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 think it's a little disingenous to dismiss it as "not doing what you want us to do". If you look at the pre-release marketing build-up, there was a full-court press on about how we were going to get a true conclusion to the story (Gamble: you weren't going pull a LOST), how we were going to get dramatically different endings because you weren't beholden to a sequel anymore (Gamble: "bespoke ending" comment; Hudson: "not an A/B/C ending"), how player choice was going to matter, etc. etc. You can't possibly look at what was released and say those statements are true.

So at least pre-release, you guys seemed to understand what the customers wanted out of a conclusion to the trilogy... you "got it". Yet, you delivered NONE of those things with the ending you gave us. And you talk about "artistic integrity" and say "well, we stand behind our ending, but we'll add some 'closure' and 'clarity'". What about that regular boring kind of integrity where you respect your customer and not promise things that (if this is the ending you envisioned all along) you had no intention of delivering?

This isn't about doing what WE say. This is about doing what YOU said you were going to do, living up to what YOU marketed the game as. If you can't do that... well, fine. All we can do as customers is not buy your products going forward. Which is a shame, because when they're good, they're SOOOO damn good.

lol.  Funny, and parlty accurate.  Essentially:

Bioware:  "The presence of the rachni has huge consequences in ME3, even just in the final battle with the Reapers.

Us:  "Bioware, please give us the "huge consequences" in ME3 of having rachni, especially in the final battle with the Reapers because the rachni don't even appear..."

Bioware:  "You can't make us give you huge consequences in ME3 because of the rachni, not even in the final battle with the Reapers."

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 13 avril 2012 - 03:11 .

[WhiteVV1ings]

Wow, didn't expect this thread to get so much traffic. Don't mind me, carry on in your conversations.

[ArchDuck]

I do think they are listening. I also believe that at least some of the staff understand the issues a lot of their consumers are bringing up and caring about solving the ones they can.

Now whether the people who actually make the decisions are listening, understanding and caring has yet to be seen. No proof of that as yet. And we won't receive any until the Ending DLC comes out. That will be the moment we find out if they understand and care about the issues that have been brought forth.

Though alternately they could let us know they are actually hearing what many are saying, that they understand &/or care ahead of the DLC release but communication appears to be a weaker point for them then writing endings.

[Orthodox Infidel]

Snout wrote...

I guess what we can take from this thread is that, in the opinion of the BSN, 'listening' is only listening when you agree with everything the other side says and change your opinion accordingly.

If only politicians were like that.

Yep. It surprises me is that this thread is still going, but apparently there are many on BSN who really want Bioware to "listen" to them say that Bioware isn't "listening."

[Skyline45]

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.

Mr Woo did you get this advice out of "How to kill a Company for Dummies Book" ^.^

Meanwhile over at SWToR with the 1.2 patch..... *crickets crickets*

Meanwhile back in time at the DA2 release...... Anyways I think you get my point....

[Oakenshield1]

BioWare:

[Oakenshield1]

NOT LISSSTENINGGGG *gal-LUM*

[Oakenshield1]

Fans: TAKE OUR MONEY TO CHANGE THE ENDING!
Bioware: Meh, don't feel like it. Too much work. Already got all this other dough from multiplayer... *yawn* Give me something effortless to do.

[TheTrueObelus]

I'm just hearing alot of rationalizations to justify and defend a terrible ending and salvage as much pride as possible. The vision for the ending is broken because it does not line up with the vision that preceded it through 99.999% of the content. It's the Deus Ex ending. It's a complete rip off, it's not fulfilling or deep, and it doesn't belong in the ME universe. Even told well it's still doesn't belong.

[ArchDuck]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

Snout wrote...

I guess what we can take from this thread is that, in the opinion of the BSN, 'listening' is only listening when you agree with everything the other side says and change your opinion accordingly.

If only politicians were like that.

Yep. It surprises me is that this thread is still going, but apparently there are many on BSN who really want Bioware to "listen" to them say that Bioware isn't "listening."

I think it is that slight definition interpretation which I have heard expressed as "listening" vs "hearing".

Listen (http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/listen)
1: to pay attention to sound <listen to music>
2: to hear something with thoughtful attention : give consideration <listen to a plea>
3: to be alert to catch an expected sound <listen for his step>

I don't think anyone would say that Bioware isn't doing the first definition of listen but may argue as to the second. I also don't think this is entirely unreasonable because Bioware has seemed to make a prolonged effort to avoid communicating as to how they are considering what fans are saying.

Its hard for some to think that they are truely listening (with thoughtful attention) when you can't see them (no body language) and they aren't telling you what they agree with, are considering or disagree with.

Vague PR speak is worthless in conveying actual ideas or messages (especially reassurance).

Modifié par ArchDuck, 13 avril 2012 - 03:26 .

[txmn1016]

Oakenshield1 wrote...

wesr wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

Reported Woo for peer review.

That sounds bad. Would that count as an attack on a staff member? Not to mention he's probably the only mod on duty at the moment.

I only reported it as spam. I did say he should be fired though for being an ass and hijacking the thread.

Please tell me you're joking.

[ahandsomeshark]

Oakenshield1 wrote...

wesr wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

Reported Woo for peer review.

That sounds bad. Would that count as an attack on a staff member? Not to mention he's probably the only mod on duty at the moment.

I only reported it as spam. I did say he should be fired though for being an ass and hijacking the thread.

I wouldn't have reported but given the quote op posted his comment was absolutely spam/derailment.

[PsyrenY]

jumpingkaede wrote...

lol.  Funny, and parlty accurate.  Essentially:

Bioware:  "The presence of the rachni has huge consequences in ME3, even just in the final battle with the Reapers.

Us:  "Bioware, please give us the "huge consequences" in ME3 of having rachni, especially in the final battle with the Reapers because the rachni don't even appear..."

Bioware:  "You can't make us give you huge consequences in ME3 because of the rachni, not even in the final battle with the Reapers."

Can you at least wait for the EC before you start crying about what you didn't get? At least then you'll know if the Rachni are in it or not.

[ArchDuck]

txmn1016 wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

wesr wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

Reported Woo for peer review.

That sounds bad. Would that count as an attack on a staff member? Not to mention he's probably the only mod on duty at the moment.

I only reported it as spam. I did say he should be fired though for being an ass and hijacking the thread.

Please tell me you're joking.

I would hope so too. Otherwise he is doing no help for anybody except those people wanting to label dissatisfied consumers as crazy & entitled.

[Oakenshield1]

txmn1016 wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

wesr wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

Reported Woo for peer review.

That sounds bad. Would that count as an attack on a staff member? Not to mention he's probably the only mod on duty at the moment.

I only reported it as spam. I did say he should be fired though for being an ass and hijacking the thread.

Please tell me you're joking.

No, I'm not. I don't take crap from mods. This site has rules, the mods should obey them too.

[ahandsomeshark]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

So does anyone from bioware care to discuss the actual quote and explain how they could legitimately not know?

don't worry, I'll wait.

Edit: also still waiting for an explanation of you don't need MP for the best ending if anyone happens to want to address that.

[txmn1016]

Oakenshield1 wrote...

txmn1016 wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

wesr wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

Reported Woo for peer review.

That sounds bad. Would that count as an attack on a staff member? Not to mention he's probably the only mod on duty at the moment.

I only reported it as spam. I did say he should be fired though for being an ass and hijacking the thread.

Please tell me you're joking.

No, I'm not. I don't take crap from mods. This site has rules, the mods should obey them too.

Explain to me how Stanely Woo broke any BSN rules with his post.

[ahandsomeshark]

ArchDuck wrote...

txmn1016 wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

wesr wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

Reported Woo for peer review.

That sounds bad. Would that count as an attack on a staff member? Not to mention he's probably the only mod on duty at the moment.

I only reported it as spam. I did say he should be fired though for being an ass and hijacking the thread.

Please tell me you're joking.

I would hope so too. Otherwise he is doing no help for anybody except those people wanting to label dissatisfied consumers as crazy & entitled.

it's not hurting anyone either. the only thing that will have any effect is EA earnings and stock prices. They don't care how nice or reasonable you are. They care how it affects their bottom line.