zenoxis wrote...
Can we at least get confirmation that the devs working on Mass Effect actually look at these forums at all? I mean the fact that none of them have responded to any thread (meaningful and otherwise) is incredibly disconcerting.
Pacifien wrote...
I also would love to know their thinking process behind the ending, but I'm one of the seemingly few who had little issue with it. But even if I want to know their thinking process behind it, I don't want them to explain it as "this is what it is, stop speculating." People keep saying they want them to either confirm or outright deny the indoctrination theory, but I think they're right to let it breath on its own even if they had never intended it.Isichar wrote...
I for example dont want the ending explained because I want to tell them why they are wrong for it, i want it explained because i genuinely want to understand how it was suppose to be viewed.
It reminds me very much of the "Deckerd is a replicant" theory for Bladerunner, which was fan created to explain plotholes that came about during filming/editing that mentioned a fifth replicant which was in the script but was ultimately scrapped from the film itself. It became popular enough that Ridley Scott accepted it while Harrison Ford didn't.
And I think rather than "artistic integrity," perhaps what the developers should have said was "artistic interpretation," because trying to understand what they were thinking was probably what they wanted from the ending.... I can't say they did it all that well, but considering how they never hid the fact they were 100% influenced by late 70s/early 80s science fiction, I can see why they tried.
Anyway, yes, no one's going to get those types of answers from an ME developer here because the question isn't why they did it so much as fix it. No, I don't care why you did it, fix it. FIX IT, NOW! Why aren't you fixing it? Why are you trying to explain it to me when you could be fixing it? No, don't tweak it! FIX IT! That means change it! Everything about i--right, I've officially lost it for the evening. Sleep now.
I need to ask this and would greatly appreciate an answer.
I have played DAO, DA2, ME1, ME2, ME3 and one thing I noticed is that many things have from a game to its sequel.
The part that I didn't like (THIS IS NOTHING ABOUT PLOT) were the fetch missions from DA2, I thought they just were unimaginative (but that is my opinion) and why were they introduced in ME3?
I understand being from a different team but the fetch missions (overhear conversation between NPCs, go to world area, return item that looks meaningless) just were bland.
One thing I did like better in DA2 was that at least you would see the item in the world but in ME3 you would just scan a planet and get a text box and NEVER see the item and then return it. I thought it would have been better even if it just reused an area (similar to the ME1 warehouses) because that seemed more fitting.
So who thought up the fetch missions? They just seemed (from a customer perspective) like an quick way out of level designing. I just want to learn the views of Bioware employees in terms of those types of missions.
Also on a small side note. The journal system in ME3 is awful since when you open the journal it starts in the middle of the missions (all missions, including completed ones) and the journal was mostly cluttered by the fetch missions.
Modifié par RX_Sean_XI, 18 avril 2012 - 06:24 .
Pacifien wrote...
The way I've heard it described, they will create categories and then place post-it notes of complaints under those categories based on feedback from everywhere, not just the forums. And many of the developers apparently do lurk on the forums specifically looking for such. I do know for a fact that the developers who were charge of combat mechanics were paying attention to the strategy forum for ME2.Isichar wrote...
I said it before ill say it again. Im interested in what form they are listening. Is someone from bioware payed to just take notes on the things talked about around the forums and such?
Anyway, so imagine in Mass Effect 1, there was a post-it note about, say, Elevators. And the Mako. And inventory. So they got rid of all three. But then fans remembered that the elevators were the points where squadmates would actually talk to each other. So in Mass Effect 2, there's a post-it note about squad interaction. And then people said they went too far by eliminating the inventory altogether in ME2, so customization of various weapons returns in ME3.
I also like to think someone paid close attention to all those debates about the Heretic mission in ME2 because, damn, don't I feel vindicated in ME3 for my choice in that game. No wait, I was going to bed.
John Epler wrote...
And I think, unfortunately, this is part of the problem. None of this is intended by the statements that have been made. No one thinks that you're stupid if you don't like the ending. There's a mentality of us vs them that's become rather prevalent, and here's the thing - everyone believes that they're a part of 'us', because who wants to be a part of 'them'?
The thing is, if I were on the ME team, I doubt I'd be posting here. Not because I don't appreciate and care about our fanbase, but because whatever gets posted is going to be torn apart, and hostility found where none is meant. And interacting with the community has, by and large, always been a voluntary thing. There's nowhere in my job description that says 'MUST INTERACT WITH FANS'. Lots of stuff about design-related responsibilities, but I do the community stuff because, hey, I enjoy it, and I apparently have a healthy masochistic streak
Anyways. Most of you remain civil and polite, and I very much appreciate it. Keep it up!
Terror_K wrote...
Pacifien wrote...
The way I've heard it described, they will create categories and then place post-it notes of complaints under those categories based on feedback from everywhere, not just the forums. And many of the developers apparently do lurk on the forums specifically looking for such. I do know for a fact that the developers who were charge of combat mechanics were paying attention to the strategy forum for ME2.Isichar wrote...
I said it before ill say it again. Im interested in what form they are listening. Is someone from bioware payed to just take notes on the things talked about around the forums and such?
Anyway, so imagine in Mass Effect 1, there was a post-it note about, say, Elevators. And the Mako. And inventory. So they got rid of all three. But then fans remembered that the elevators were the points where squadmates would actually talk to each other. So in Mass Effect 2, there's a post-it note about squad interaction. And then people said they went too far by eliminating the inventory altogether in ME2, so customization of various weapons returns in ME3.
I also like to think someone paid close attention to all those debates about the Heretic mission in ME2 because, damn, don't I feel vindicated in ME3 for my choice in that game. No wait, I was going to bed.
That's been one of my issues with the Mass Effect team ever since ME2 came along: it seemed to me that instead of actually listening and reading what fans had to say about the matters and what could be done to improve them, they just simplified the issues down to one or two words and either simply eliminated them or increased/added them based on whether they were generally positive or negative, rather than analyze them for what worked and what didn't. It just seemed to me that given the responses and "fixes" that issues were merely bullet-points to solve. They never seemed to delve further and ask the "why?" questions.
Now, this may not be strictly true, since I'm not sure how the teams approached it, but that's how things came across. If something was an problem, get rid of it, whether it's got merit or not. And it still boggles my mind how the crew conversations were handled in ME3 given how pretty much everybody complained about it being done that way with Zaeed and Kasumi in ME2.
I think we scared John and Allan...it is like seeing a deer so you sneak up on it and then punch it in the head so it quickly retreats.
I think we punched them in the head.
Allan Schumacher wrote...
I think we scared John and Allan...it is like seeing a deer so you sneak up on it and then punch it in the head so it quickly retreats.
I think we punched them in the head.
I was just posting in a different thread.
Modifié par RX_Sean_XI, 18 avril 2012 - 06:57 .
Well, let's say you have a whiteboard in a room and you need to visualize everything about your previous game that needs improvement for the second game so that the whole team can see it. Are you going to write a detailed analysis or stick a post-it note bulletpoint on that board? The post-it note could simply say "more squad interaction," and then you hand it to the writers who then need to figure out what that means. I mean, kudos to whoever gave the level designer "no reused maps" for ME2, because there were no resused maps.Isichar wrote...
Thats what scares me about them just reading issues and trying to fix them as if they are just bulletpoints. If they dont understand why the reaction was so negative I am not entirely convinced they will end up improving on the ending, it could just be salt in the wound.
Pacifien wrote...
Well, let's say you have a whiteboard in a room and you need to visualize everything about your previous game that needs improvement for the second game so that the whole team can see it. Are you going to write a detailed analysis or stick a post-it note bulletpoint on that board? The post-it note could simply say "more squad interaction," and then you hand it to the writers who then need to figure out what that means. I mean, kudos to whoever gave the level designer "no reused maps" for ME2, because there were no resused maps.Isichar wrote...
Thats what scares me about them just reading issues and trying to fix them as if they are just bulletpoints. If they dont understand why the reaction was so negative I am not entirely convinced they will end up improving on the ending, it could just be salt in the wound.
I suppose many people remain unconvinced because they feel the ending is unsalvageable, in spite of having played missions like Tuchanka and Rannoch earlier in the game. That's a legitimate POV, but in that case, I think it's probably time they... well, it doesn't matter what I think. They'll spend their energy in a way they feel is the best use of their time.
Modifié par Isichar, 18 avril 2012 - 07:19 .
jkflipflopDAO wrote...
It really, really makes me think the ME team cares nothing about us when they don't post here.
They care nothing for the product they've crafted or the fanbase they've cultivated. We were just cash cows and now they're making a calculated attempt to keep the cow happy enough to give moneymilk via future DLC purposes.
I see a couple of dudes from the Dragon Age side of the house hanging out, but the people we really want to talk to apparently don't want to talk to us. Fine.
LiquidGrape wrote...
jkflipflopDAO wrote...
It really, really makes me think the ME team cares nothing about us when they don't post here.
They care nothing for the product they've crafted or the fanbase they've cultivated. We were just cash cows and now they're making a calculated attempt to keep the cow happy enough to give moneymilk via future DLC purposes.
I see a couple of dudes from the Dragon Age side of the house hanging out, but the people we really want to talk to apparently don't want to talk to us. Fine.
I can't possibly imagine why the developer's aren't lining up to hear you accuse them of not caring for the game into which they poured their overworked and underpaid time and energy.
You're obviously a joy to engage in conversation.
LiquidGrape wrote...
jkflipflopDAO wrote...
It really, really makes me think the ME team cares nothing about us when they don't post here.
They care nothing for the product they've crafted or the fanbase they've cultivated. We were just cash cows and now they're making a calculated attempt to keep the cow happy enough to give moneymilk via future DLC purposes.
I see a couple of dudes from the Dragon Age side of the house hanging out, but the people we really want to talk to apparently don't want to talk to us. Fine.
I can't possibly imagine why the developer's aren't lining up to hear you accuse them of not caring for the game into which they poured their overworked and underpaid time and energy.
You're obviously a joy to engage in conversation.
RX_Sean_XI wrote...
At least you guys weren't punched in the head.
But, what about fetch missions? I have never gotten an answer on them (even on the Dragon Age side). In ME3 they seemed like filler missions to make it seem like a lot. Similar to DA2 as their percieved role, except in DA2 you could travel to their location. In ME3 they seemed to be added at the last moment.
Even with what JaylaClark said, the e-mail really didn't seem right. Anyone that I have talked to about it said it felt wrong.
)
Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 18 avril 2012 - 07:34 .
Allan Schumacher wrote...
RX_Sean_XI wrote...
At least you guys weren't punched in the head.
But, what about fetch missions? I have never gotten an answer on them (even on the Dragon Age side). In ME3 they seemed like filler missions to make it seem like a lot. Similar to DA2 as their percieved role, except in DA2 you could travel to their location. In ME3 they seemed to be added at the last moment.
Even with what JaylaClark said, the e-mail really didn't seem right. Anyone that I have talked to about it said it felt wrong.
My initial thoughts on the "fetch quests" was "neat, a different way to acquire a quest" based on how they were typically acquired by eavesdropping on a conversation. In that sense, I didn't really mind them. It seemed like an iterative thing to do with how they were in DA2, and maybe would provide a little bit more engagement to this type of content.
In this sense, I thought that they were an improvement over DA2 in that the quest had a more definitive intro and conclusion, even with some interesting dialogue such as with the Elcor Ambassador (
The quests themselves are just something that I would do if it was along the path of another quest. So in that sense I didn't find them particularly engaging. By the time I reached Horizon I stopped doing them which I think is a fault. In some cases, such as the one with the Elcor Ambassador, it was a bit jarring because I was hoping to land and see them, which I think makes the limitations of the light quests more apparent.
Had they not existed at all, I probably wouldn't have had the conversation with the Elcor Ambassador which I did enjoy, so I don't think they're entirely bad. I think they're improved upon over DA2, so maybe there are ways to make them a bit interesting. A big advantage of them is that they're lower cost which means if we can make them interesting, the idea of adding additional, interesting content is always appealing.
So basically diplomatic dev speak that doesn't actually say anything.
Allan Schumacher wrote...
RX_Sean_XI wrote...
At least you guys weren't punched in the head.
But, what about fetch missions? I have never gotten an answer on them (even on the Dragon Age side). In ME3 they seemed like filler missions to make it seem like a lot. Similar to DA2 as their percieved role, except in DA2 you could travel to their location. In ME3 they seemed to be added at the last moment.
Even with what JaylaClark said, the e-mail really didn't seem right. Anyone that I have talked to about it said it felt wrong.
My initial thoughts on the "fetch quests" was "neat, a different way to acquire a quest" based on how they were typically acquired by eavesdropping on a conversation. In that sense, I didn't really mind them. It seemed like an iterative thing to do with how they were in DA2, and maybe would provide a little bit more engagement to this type of content.
In this sense, I thought that they were an improvement over DA2 in that the quest had a more definitive intro and conclusion, even with some interesting dialogue such as with the Elcor Ambassador (
The quests themselves are just something that I would do if it was along the path of another quest. So in that sense I didn't find them particularly engaging. By the time I reached Horizon I stopped doing them which I think is a fault. In some cases, such as the one with the Elcor Ambassador, it was a bit jarring because I was hoping to land and see them, which I think makes the limitations of the light quests more apparent.
Had they not existed at all, I probably wouldn't have had the conversation with the Elcor Ambassador which I did enjoy, so I don't think they're entirely bad. I think they're improved upon over DA2, so maybe there are ways to make them a bit interesting. A big advantage of them is that they're lower cost which means if we can make them interesting, the idea of adding additional, interesting content is always appealing.
So basically diplomatic dev speak that doesn't actually say anything.
Isichar wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
RX_Sean_XI wrote...
At least you guys weren't punched in the head.
But,
what about fetch missions? I have never gotten an answer on them (even
on the Dragon Age side). In ME3 they seemed like filler missions to make
it seem like a lot. Similar to DA2 as their percieved role, except
in DA2 you could travel to their location. In ME3 they seemed to be
added at the last moment.
Even with what JaylaClark said, the e-mail really didn't seem right. Anyone that I have talked to about it said it felt wrong.
My
initial thoughts on the "fetch quests" was "neat, a different way to
acquire a quest" based on how they were typically acquired by
eavesdropping on a conversation. In that sense, I didn't really mind
them. It seemed like an iterative thing to do with how they were in
DA2, and maybe would provide a little bit more engagement to this type
of content.
In this sense, I thought that they were an
improvement over DA2 in that the quest had a more definitive intro and
conclusion, even with some interesting dialogue such as with the Elcor
Ambassador ([smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie])
The
quests themselves are just something that I would do if it was along
the path of another quest. So in that sense I didn't find them
particularly engaging. By the time I reached Horizon I stopped doing
them which I think is a fault. In some cases, such as the one with the
Elcor Ambassador, it was a bit jarring because I was hoping to land and
see them, which I think makes the limitations of the light quests more
apparent.
Had they not existed at all, I probably wouldn't have
had the conversation with the Elcor Ambassador which I did enjoy, so
I don't think they're entirely bad. I think they're improved upon over
DA2, so maybe there are ways to make them a bit interesting. A big
advantage of them is that they're lower cost which means if we can make
them interesting, the idea of adding additional, interesting content is
always appealing.
So basically diplomatic dev speak that doesn't actually say anything. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]
Can you at least admit the Quest journal was pretty weak?
No?
ok
Modifié par bobafett007, 18 avril 2012 - 07:39 .
Allan Schumacher wrote...
My initial thoughts on the "fetch quests" was "neat, a different way to acquire a quest" based on how they were typically acquired by eavesdropping on a conversation. In that sense, I didn't really mind them. It seemed like an iterative thing to do with how they were in DA2, and maybe would provide a little bit more engagement to this type of content.
[Big Snip]
Retour en haut
