486 réponses à ce sujet

[GroverA125]

With respect, us asking for a nice cold drink and you giving us boiling hot water is NOT taking our feedback into account, that's called being vindictive. Out of sheer, morbid curiosity, what is the next point in your oh-so enigmatic "artistic vision" that we keep hearing of? because this vision of yours looks a lot more like a drunken hallucination to me.

[ahandsomeshark]

txmn1016 wrote...

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.

I don't know if he broke a specific rule, and like I said I wouldn't have reported him. But read the quote OP is referencing and read Woo's response and tell me how his response is in any way related or in anyway adresses the actual topic? It was just straight spam/derailment and not even very subtle about it at that.

[Thalador]

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.

So basically BW dismisses 90% of the absolutely valid feedback (on how much the ending sucks from various points of view, including narrative cohesion, lore, promises and so on)that has been given and is still being given here, on youtube, and numerous other fansites, blogs, gaming news sites, news sites, etc. because those always disagree with the visions of the two overlords who arbitrarily wrote the ending and forced it down not just our throats, but the rest of their (writing) team as well?

That's cool! Artistic integrity & vision FTW!

Modifié par Thalador, 13 avril 2012 - 03:34 .

[txmn1016]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

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.

How is reporting Stanely Woo going to affect EA's earnings and stock prices? 

[ArchDuck]

Optimystic_X wrote...

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.

No offence but they aren't "crying" (very dismissive language there) and also they didn't say anything that isn't true. Bioware has said on more then one occasion that they don't have to do anything they don't want to (which is true but not reassuring when you are asking for things specifically promised and advertised).

Now whether Bioware addresses this broken promise is what waiting for the DLC is about.

[Kushan101]

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. 

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.

Nicely said sir/madam. Very well said indeed.

[ahandsomeshark]

txmn1016 wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

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.

How is reporting Stanely Woo going to affect EA's earnings and stock prices? 

It's not, my point is it's not going to hurt anyone else either. Reporting him isn't going to suddenly make EA say omg entitled not listening. Just like making calm polite rational arguments isn't going to make EA say, omg they're right. The only thing that matters to them is $$$. Now feedback in here may help shape a change, but it won't lead to one, nor prevent one.

[ArchDuck]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

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.

I'm not trying to remain reasonable and nice for EA. Or for any one other person or group. I am doing it simply because of one thing: You don't win debates/arguements (with intelligent people) by being emotional and offensive, but you do lose them that way.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 13 avril 2012 - 03:37 .

[txmn1016]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

txmn1016 wrote...

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.

I don't know if he broke a specific rule, and like I said I wouldn't have reported him. But read the quote OP is referencing and read Woo's response and tell me how his response is in any way related or in anyway adresses the actual topic? It was just straight spam/derailment and not even very subtle about it at that.

Indeed, going off topic is a no no.  However, Stanely Woo was responding (as someone employed by BW) to a statement from another BW employee that a fan wasn't happy with.  How is that off topic? How is that spam? He was responding directly to the topic! 

[PillarBiter]

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.

somebody got some PR lessons

good. finally.

[txmn1016]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

txmn1016 wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

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.

How is reporting Stanely Woo going to affect EA's earnings and stock prices? 

It's not, my point is it's not going to hurt anyone else either. Reporting him isn't going to suddenly make EA say omg entitled not listening. Just like making calm polite rational arguments isn't going to make EA say, omg they're right. The only thing that matters to them is $$$. Now feedback in here may help shape a change, but it won't lead to one, nor prevent one.

So because it's (presumably) not hurting anyone (including Stanely Woo, the person being reported), it's ok? I'm sorry, I'm getting confused about why reporting someone for no reason is ok.  It just seems like a massive waste of time to me.

[DangerousPuddy]

Bioware guys, don't get us wrong we respect everything you do. But at the end of the day, if you're unwilling to admit a flaw, in a product - while yes the responsibility on us is whetehr we buy it or not - when you promised us A but delivered Z, you can't expect a different reaction.

You are going to lose a lot of your fanbase by this, as well as word of mouth and more. It's something we don't want but its going to happen if you don't deliver...especially when virtually EVERYYTHING you said would be in the game wasn't, after telling us it would BASED on our feedback.

[Oakenshield1]

txmn1016 wrote...

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.

Ehem: No Spam. Spamming can be defined as posting multiple times about
the same thing, starting multiple topics about the same thing, posting
off-topic posts in other people’s discussion threads or topics, or
providing links that have nothing to do with the forum, topic or subject
at hand, or taking existing discussions off of intended topic. Spam
will be deleted without warning. Posting single images or animated .gifs
instead of discussion is considered spam and is not wanted here. What
constitutes Spam is up to the discretion of staff and moderators.

and ehem: No fighting or flame wars. There is no place for fighting and
flaming others on these message boards. Disagreeing with other Community
members is acceptable and understood, but actively fighting and/or
flaming will not be tolerated. Topics that are designed to start a flame
war (defined as abrasive and/or offensive argument that serves no
purpose but to make people mad) or posts made that are discourteous
and/or hostile to other Community members or the discussion at hand will
be treated as Spam and deleted without warning. If someone acts in a
hostile manner to you or to others, DO NOT engage a person or persons
who is fighting. Contact staff or a volunteer moderator and let them
handle the issue. What is considered fighting or flaming is up to the
discretion of staff and volunteer moderators. A person or persons found
to fight with or flame others may be banned from these forums at the
discretion of the staff.

Of topic, rude spam. Hence the peer review.

[jumpingkaede]

ArchDuck wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

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.

No offence but they aren't "crying" (very dismissive language there) and also they didn't say anything that isn't true. Bioware has said on more then one occasion that they don't have to do anything they don't want to (which is true but not reassuring when you are asking for things specifically promised and advertised).

Now whether Bioware addresses this broken promise is what waiting for the DLC is about.

Appreciate it., ArchDuck.

As to Optimystic_X:

First:  If I was crying about what I didn't get, it's fair regardless of what I may get in the future.  Are the Rachni "in it"?  No.  I'm sure of that because I bought and finished the game.  So that's something that I "didn't get".  

Second:  I promise you that if the Rachni are in the EC, I will stop "crying" about it.  At that point, I will have "got it" and therefore my crying would be moot.  On that point, you and I are in agreement.  Fair enough?

[Oakenshield1]

txmn1016 wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

txmn1016 wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

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.

How is reporting Stanely Woo going to affect EA's earnings and stock prices? 

It's not, my point is it's not going to hurt anyone else either. Reporting him isn't going to suddenly make EA say omg entitled not listening. Just like making calm polite rational arguments isn't going to make EA say, omg they're right. The only thing that matters to them is $$$. Now feedback in here may help shape a change, but it won't lead to one, nor prevent one.

So because it's (presumably) not hurting anyone (including Stanely Woo, the person being reported), it's ok? I'm sorry, I'm getting confused about why reporting someone for no reason is ok.  It just seems like a massive waste of time to me.

reporting him was a matter of principle. I don't want to be on a site with mods who can get away with stuff we can't.

[txmn1016]

Oakenshield1 wrote...

Ehem: No Spam. Spamming can be defined as posting multiple times about
the same thing, starting multiple topics about the same thing, posting
off-topic posts in other people’s discussion threads or topics, or
providing links that have nothing to do with the forum, topic or subject
at hand, or taking existing discussions off of intended topic. Spam
will be deleted without warning. Posting single images or animated .gifs
instead of discussion is considered spam and is not wanted here. What
constitutes Spam is up to the discretion of staff and moderators.

and ehem: No fighting or flame wars. There is no place for fighting and
flaming others on these message boards. Disagreeing with other Community
members is acceptable and understood, but actively fighting and/or
flaming will not be tolerated. Topics that are designed to start a flame
war (defined as abrasive and/or offensive argument that serves no
purpose but to make people mad) or posts made that are discourteous
and/or hostile to other Community members or the discussion at hand will
be treated as Spam and deleted without warning. If someone acts in a
hostile manner to you or to others, DO NOT engage a person or persons
who is fighting. Contact staff or a volunteer moderator and let them
handle the issue. What is considered fighting or flaming is up to the
discretion of staff and volunteer moderators. A person or persons found
to fight with or flame others may be banned from these forums at the
discretion of the staff.

Of topic, rude spam. Hence the peer review.

Thanks for that. 

So, like I said before, Stanely Woo's comment was a direct response to the OP.  Not spam.  

On the other note, it was also not even remotely hostile.  I don't see how he violated either of these rules.  

Modifié par txmn1016, 13 avril 2012 - 03:47 .

[Capeo]

Oakenshield1 wrote...


Ehem: No Spam. Spamming can be defined as posting multiple times about
the same thing, starting multiple topics about the same thing, posting
off-topic posts in other people’s discussion threads or topics, or
providing links that have nothing to do with the forum, topic or subject
at hand, or taking existing discussions off of intended topic. Spam
will be deleted without warning. Posting single images or animated .gifs
instead of discussion is considered spam and is not wanted here. What
constitutes Spam is up to the discretion of staff and moderators.

and ehem: No fighting or flame wars. There is no place for fighting and
flaming others on these message boards. Disagreeing with other Community
members is acceptable and understood, but actively fighting and/or
flaming will not be tolerated. Topics that are designed to start a flame
war (defined as abrasive and/or offensive argument that serves no
purpose but to make people mad) or posts made that are discourteous
and/or hostile to other Community members or the discussion at hand will
be treated as Spam and deleted without warning. If someone acts in a
hostile manner to you or to others, DO NOT engage a person or persons
who is fighting. Contact staff or a volunteer moderator and let them
handle the issue. What is considered fighting or flaming is up to the
discretion of staff and volunteer moderators. A person or persons found
to fight with or flame others may be banned from these forums at the
discretion of the staff.

Of topic, rude spam. Hence the peer review.

Dude, you're nuts.  He was responding directly to the topic of the thread.  I hope he drops the ban hammer on you.

Modifié par Capeo, 13 avril 2012 - 03:45 .

[ahandsomeshark]

ArchDuck wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

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.

I'm not trying to remain reasonable and nice for EA. Or for any one other person or group. I am doing it simply because of one thing: You don't win debates/arguements (with intelligent people) by being emotional and offensive, but you do lose them that way.

I agree, but my point is that people seem to think winning a debate on a forum is going to have an effect on bioware/EA, and in that same vein they seem to be convinced that every time someone acts like a dunce it has some sort of negative net effect. It doesn't, none of it does. There's no debate/or argument to win that will actually resuly in anything. So it doesn't matter if 4000 "retakers" act like total entitled morons, or 50,000 act like they just walked out of Cambridge, all that matters is whether they're still giving EA their money. That's it. Bottom line, we can argue with mods or anyone else in here all we want, but publicly traded corporations, especially one who's stock has been in decline and who's as concerned with quarterly reports/earnings as much as EA aren't going to even pay attention to the behavior of their consumers outside of whether they're still consuming. 

There's also the fact that Mr. Woo's post was fairly blatantly off-topic and resulted in complete derailment of the thread. Do you think he posted something obviously inciting and completely irrelevant on accident? I've read enough of his posts to think he's much smarter than that.

[ArchDuck]

The walls of quoting could use some trimming people.

[txmn1016]

Oakenshield1 wrote...

reporting him was a matter of principle. I don't want to be on a site with mods who can get away with stuff we can't.

You see his comment as getting away with what? Trolling? Lying? Flaming? I don't see what was so offensive about what he said.  The real issue here is just that so many people fundamentally disagree with it. The guy is allowed an opinion.  And since we're allowed to share ours, he should be allowed to share his. I've seen other forum members "get away" with a lot worse.

Modifié par txmn1016, 13 avril 2012 - 03:46 .

[ArchDuck]

@ahandsomeshark
Fair enough.

[Oakenshield1]

txmn1016 wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...

txmn1016 wrote...

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.

Ehem: No Spam. Spamming can be defined as posting multiple times about
the same thing, starting multiple topics about the same thing, posting
off-topic posts in other people’s discussion threads or topics, or
providing links that have nothing to do with the forum, topic or subject
at hand, or taking existing discussions off of intended topic. Spam
will be deleted without warning. Posting single images or animated .gifs
instead of discussion is considered spam and is not wanted here. What
constitutes Spam is up to the discretion of staff and moderators.

and ehem: No fighting or flame wars. There is no place for fighting and
flaming others on these message boards. Disagreeing with other Community
members is acceptable and understood, but actively fighting and/or
flaming will not be tolerated. Topics that are designed to start a flame
war (defined as abrasive and/or offensive argument that serves no
purpose but to make people mad) or posts made that are discourteous
and/or hostile to other Community members or the discussion at hand will
be treated as Spam and deleted without warning. If someone acts in a
hostile manner to you or to others, DO NOT engage a person or persons
who is fighting. Contact staff or a volunteer moderator and let them
handle the issue. What is considered fighting or flaming is up to the
discretion of staff and volunteer moderators. A person or persons found
to fight with or flame others may be banned from these forums at the
discretion of the staff.

Of topic, rude spam. Hence the peer review.

Thanks for that. 

So, like I said before, Stanely Woo's comment was a direct response to the OP.  Not spam.  

On the other note, it was also not even remotely hostile.  I don't see how he violated either of these rules.  

Discourtious was in the list as well, fine chap. The man known as Woo spoke in a condecending manner that was so rude that it brought the thread's entire attention upon him (it still is upon him), and not on the subject at hand.

[Oakenshield1]

Capeo wrote...

Oakenshield1 wrote...


Ehem: No Spam. Spamming can be defined as posting multiple times about
the same thing, starting multiple topics about the same thing, posting
off-topic posts in other people’s discussion threads or topics, or
providing links that have nothing to do with the forum, topic or subject
at hand, or taking existing discussions off of intended topic. Spam
will be deleted without warning. Posting single images or animated .gifs
instead of discussion is considered spam and is not wanted here. What
constitutes Spam is up to the discretion of staff and moderators.

and ehem: No fighting or flame wars. There is no place for fighting and
flaming others on these message boards. Disagreeing with other Community
members is acceptable and understood, but actively fighting and/or
flaming will not be tolerated. Topics that are designed to start a flame
war (defined as abrasive and/or offensive argument that serves no
purpose but to make people mad) or posts made that are discourteous
and/or hostile to other Community members or the discussion at hand will
be treated as Spam and deleted without warning. If someone acts in a
hostile manner to you or to others, DO NOT engage a person or persons
who is fighting. Contact staff or a volunteer moderator and let them
handle the issue. What is considered fighting or flaming is up to the
discretion of staff and volunteer moderators. A person or persons found
to fight with or flame others may be banned from these forums at the
discretion of the staff.

Of topic, rude spam. Hence the peer review.

Dude, you're nuts.  He was responding directly to the topic of the thread.  I hope he drops the ban hammer on you.

He would have to drop the ban hammer on himself then too. And everyone on this thread who's responded to him, telling him he's being rude.

[Chris-1983]

I think for the ending they didn`t listen at all to the fans and  they (especially  two persons) wanted to push their "artistic vision" without caring for the fans, the mass universum, the characters or shepard. I made me sad to see that for Bioware their artistic vision and integritiy goes over everything and with that they stepped over the line. How should we trust them in the coming games and that they don`t have a sudden artistiv vision, which screws the ending?