213 réponses à ce sujet

[Luvinn]

I never even knew who chobot was until I heard about her on these forums. She looks straight out of jersey shore. A real pathetic tactic if you ask me. How would they any bad reviews from them when a member of their staff is in the game. Wish there was a way to flood her room into space.

[Lincoln MuaDib]

You mean flush the airlock.

Chobot herself doesn't look as bad as Allers, not by a long shot.

Though I do think she tries to use her body way too much as her "selling point", rather than trying to develop / use her other attributes.

[MrSquits]

I didn't really care. I had high hopes for ME3, but braced myself for disappointment.

I thoroughly enjoyed playing ME3, but it felt more of an opportunity missed than an insult.

I've moved on now. Finished Dragon Age 2 last night, thinking of whipping my PS2 out for some classics.

[Forsythia]

Artistic integrity, guys!

And yeah, I honestly don't think it's such a big deal that Emily was killed on Twitter, it's just another one of those things that make their constant blabbering about 'artistic integrity' so cringeworthy.

[Orkfaeller]

Atakuma wrote...

Don't be so over dramatic. Emily Wong was just another npc, she doesn't "deserve" anything.

Topic is that we allready had two established characters for this role, that could have tied ME3 and ME2 / 1 well together.

Instead they killed them just off and replaced her with someone who had no place in this universe ( or the necesarry talent ) for this job.

[Darman]

Killing Emily wrong via Twitter to make place for Allers? Didn't even noticed that. Now that you say - bad fail.

But the thing with Tali isn't that unrealistic as pointed out.

[abaris]

Darman wrote...

But the thing with Tali isn't that unrealistic as pointed out.

Tali as a kind of standard human beauty?

Come on. Although I'm not amongst the Tali fans, I call that uninspired. Even more so, since her race is obviously descendant of some very different species. Rather bird or reptile comes to mind.

Again, why do it at all when slapping on a photoshop stocked picture is all the effort they wanted to invest?

[knightnblu]

If there was going to be an embedded reporter on the Normandy it should have been Emily Wong. I have nothing against Chobot, but she is not a voice actor, she is a 'reporter' and should remain one. The person who played Emily Wong is a voice actor and could have given far more to the role than Chobot. I won't cite "journalistic ethics" because they obviously don't exist anymore other than in fiction, but this is pandering pure and simple. Jessica Chobot was given a role that she couldn't succeed in because she lacks the skill set to be successful and that isn't her fault. The blame lies solely with BioWare for that foul up.

[DadeLeviathan]

 The Tali photoshop I can get over. What I can't get over is some people at Bioware acting like they agonized over the decision. Anyone semi-competant in photoshop would have been able to pull that off in an hour at most. They did it for fan service, and didn't realize that the fans would be so angry at how lazy they were. And honestly, if it was any other franchise where the players weren't as invested in the characters, I don't think the fans would have cared. Honestly, I don't care. I wasn't too excited to see Tali's face anyway. personally, I wish they had kept it covered to allow the mystery to continue, but that's just me.

What got me was killing Emily Wong on twitter. That was not an inspired choice, it was stupid. Not creative, not ingenious, stupid. I would like to add that I never enjoyed the character of Wong, I felt that she was just inserted into the universe to help pad ME1 out a bit during the original citadel section, and to provide a bit of plot reactivity in ME2. I would have just shrugged if she had died in one of the books/beginning of ME3. But to kill her off outside of the universe let alone on twitter is nothing short of idiotic. It's clear the reason they did that is to make room for Allers, because otherwise fans would have asked "Where's Emily?" At least those that remembered her would have. 

On top of this, Allers was a one-dimensional character, with a horrible voice actor, and an even worse face model (seriously it looks like she's a diseased chipmunk. When will developers stop trying to incorporated 'real world,' faces into games? It looks hideous. Miranda's face is bad enough, but Allers is just way too Uncanny Valley. STOP IT). Jessica Chobot is a decent games journalist. She is, quite obviously, only there for her looks, but at least she knows somewhat what she's talking about it and it's not just a pretty face spouting random things (à la Olivia Munn, whom I cannot stand, but that's a story for another day). But she is not a voice actor. I can understand fan service with someone who can actually voice act well (i.e. Felicia Day), but putting Chobot in was obvious fan service just because she's good looking and likes games. This is not only disrespectful to the fans and women as a whole, but disrespectful to Chobot as well (her not caring that it's disrespectful does not change that fact). 

There is no place for putting people who cannot voice act into voice acting roles.

While we're at it, why don't we put http://thatguywithth...sses.com/ ]That Guy With The Glasses[/url] in an upcoming DLC? At least he'd be funny. 

Modifié par DadeLeviathan, 24 avril 2012 - 04:46 .

[Vormaerin]

DaJe wrote...


Twitter and facebook and an actual gamer journalist should not be connected to a fictional universe that plays out in the future.
When you buy the game you should get the full experience. Being reminded of anything outside of the game, and that includes stupid accomplishment pop-ups during dramatic scenes, breaks immersion and hurts the experience.
It is bad game design, just like playing random fart noises throughout the game would be bad design.

So, no books, anime, comics, cerberus news network forum posts, etc because they are 'outside the game'?

You certainly don't get the "full experience" just from the game.    Mass Effect is clearly a multimedia product at this point.  An extremely minor bit of bonus material for twitter fans isn't any different than collector's set bonuses.

I am still not grasping how your game is less for her death being revealed via Twitter rather than not mentioned at all.  If you think they are going to replace emails or twitter events with substantially more expensive in game interactions with tertiary characters like Kal'Reegar and Emily Wong, you are crazy.

If these "lazy" ways aren't used, you won't see anything about those characters.  They are too minor to merit graphics, voice acting (both their own, plus more lines from Meer/Hale, and so on.

[tbb033]

My biggest problem with Allers is that Chobot is the worst voice actor I've heard since the days of the Turbografx-CD and Sega-CD.

Her character design isn't great either (that dress is ridiculous) but if she'd had a decent actress that knew how to deliver lines properly, the character could have been saved.

[Drake_Hound]

Honestly pfttt after reading trough all this ...... well eloquently put .... pile of garbage .

1 Jessica Chobot definetly deserved a beter looks then what she looked like in allers.

2 pfttt people complaining about a minor character voice acting dialogues , honestly go watch movies or tv serie nowadays ... wait we don't cause it is all crap .
So please go criticise the acting there before you do that in a game .
Where voice actors are merrited by the lines they are given , you can have a terrific voice actor but still doesn't help if you are given garbage dialogues .

3 LoL going so far as to insult somebody for days and night for months LMAO
See BSN you lost your class , welcome EMO generation of none intellectual emo who blaim others for there own failure .
Even if she is stupidly enough to call gamers entitled whiners , doesn't mean you need to match the same stupidity .

Yo Chris I tought you were being rude , but it is fine we don't deserve beter .

[abaris]

Vormaerin wrote...


You certainly don't get the "full experience" just from the game.    Mass Effect is clearly a multimedia product at this point.  An extremely minor bit of bonus material for twitter fans isn't any different than collector's set bonuses.

You should get the full experience just from the game. Period.

If someone wants to go twitter, facebook or app, fine and dandy, but that shouldn't add to the actual game. It can add some additional gimmicks to the merchandise if someone's interested, but not to the actual boxed game.

Everything else is just a try at some marketing exploit.

[BiancoAngelo7]

Vormaerin wrote...

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...



You and a few others are missing the point, it is a very simple and a very important one. It is a point that you have no defense against, because there is none.


Twitter is NOT Mass Effect.

So your point is you have a hate for social media, which happens to be a very important gaming and advertising platform whether you like it not.

Your argument is specious.   I didn't read any of the books or comic books, because they aren't Mass Effect.  Why?  Because Mass Effect is a VIDEO GAME, not a book or a movie or an anime.   That assertion makes as much sense as yours  (ie pretty close to none).

Sorry you didn't like one of their community building exercises.   That's what it was, after all.  An attempt to reward those fans who follow ME on social media with an interesting, if trivial, development.  

The other interesting thing is... I don't have a twitter account, but I knew what had happened.  Because transcripts showed up here and in the wiki.  So you don't even have to follow twitter if you don't want to.

Dear Vormaerin, if you are going to quote someone, then quote everything they said, cherry picking things I said, while conveniently deleting things like me calling you out on your feeble attempt to insult me depicts you in the best case scenario as biased, in the worse case scenario as being deceitful.

Since you didn't want to properly quote me here is what I wrote to you:

__________________quote______________________

You and a few others are missing the point, it is a very simple and a very important one. It is a point that you have no defense against, because there is none.

I have read all the Mass Effect books, I have read all the Mass Effect Comics, I read all the Mass Effect
"news" that was updated with ME2.I did not read anything on Twitter.

You know why?

Twitter is NOT Mass Effect.

All those other products are consumable entertainment where you are immersed into the world of Mass Effect because that is what they are built and made for. You KNOW you are reading about Mass Effect when you
pick up a book or a comic about it because that's what that media is made for.

When I log on to Twitter (if ever) I do NOT expect to see anything happen there that is related to the game universe. You know why? Because it is completely, utterly, 100% a break of immersion and story and character.

Would you tell a part of the Mass Effect story on facebook? No, becsause the next thing they write right after
that could be "Hey dont forget to join in on xyz multiplayer event it's gonna be awsum sauce omg lolzorz!!!"

Would you tell a part of the story in a tv commercial? No. Because the next thing you see might be a commercial for Soap or a bad rerun of LOST.

Would you tell a part of the story on a billboard on the side of the street? No. Because you are severly limiting your audience to only those who see the billboard (twitter) and the next billboard may be about some fast food joint (again...Twitter).

If you don't get the point I was trying to make by now then you are just simply biased. Twitter is NOT an
acceptable media for the telling of ANY portion of the Mass Effect story, not even if it's to tell me something about a minor character like Emily Wong. It limits the telling of that particular portion of the story to an extremely limited number of people, you cannot blame me for missing it as I have purchased all official Mass Effect story content,
and it is a media designed for limited, brief and casual communication between REAL PEOPLE or other entities, not for the delivery of Mass Effect story.

As for you thinking I don't understand what disingenuous means, I won't bother, because you either didn't understand
the context of what I was saying when I used that word or are just grasping for any thinly veiled insult you can make to support your faulty argument.

But hey, you're right, I'm wrong. I'm sorry. I look forward to following fu**ing Twitter to find out what happened to
Captain Bailey after the end of Me3 and following fu**ing Facebook to find out if Liara ever meets her surviving parent.

Totally excited.

Artistic integrity and all that. Cheers.


________________________end quote________________________


     As to your answer:

My point is not that I hate social media. I don't use Twitter that often, but sometimes I do. And I use facebook almost regularly. I don't hate either platform, or any other platform of social media.

You say that social media "happens to be a very important gaming and advertising platform whether I like it or not".

The first part of this ir pure ridiculousness. Social media has some flash games, but it is absolutely by NO means a "gaming platform", as you call it. Many others would insult your intelligence for even trying to make this point, but I won't.

You yourself call social media an advertising platform, (correctly I might add) and try to depict it also as a gaming platform? What?

My argument is not specious. Using an uncommon word just because I demonstrated that your thinly veiled insult backfired and it was indeed you who did not know the meaning of the word disingenuous just to accuse my argument of being superficial won't make it so, no matter how hard you try. You propose a hypothetical of not reading the Mass Effect books because they aren't really Mass Effect products because they aren't a video game and say since that doesn't make sense my argument doesn't either.

This is where your selective quotation of my original response to you really shines and shows your true colors. You leave out the bulk of my response, which includes SEVERAL examples based on me saying that media created for the Mass Effect universe, such as books, comics, in game "news" and the games themselves, are made FOR the game and are therefore relevant to its story, and I even say how I have purchased and read it all.

So what do you do? You don't quote that part, and then you take my own words and try to make it look like I was saying the exact opposite of what I actually said. This shows you to be deceitful and intentionally misrepresenting yourself and the argument.

You suggest I didn't "like the community building excercise". You again, base your statement on a false assertion. I, like MANY others, didn't even get the chance to KNOW what happened until way after they had completed this "community building excercise" and only because I heard on the forums that "hey guess what? They killed a character on Twitter. She died in her van or something."

"oh ok"

You call the completion of the story arc of a minor character introduced to us in ME1 a minor and trivial development, this in itself shows your bias, once again. It is minor and trivial to YOU. Where do we go, who do we yell at, if they start thinking more like you and one day we are forced to keep up (or completely miss out on, like I did) with Twitter and other social media to know what Wrex was doing while on Tuchanka? Or when one day they decide to release the ending of a side quest on social media? Or when one day, hopefully never, they decide to release the ending to a game on social media?

I am the customer of Bioware and EA, just like many others are. I buy their products because there is an implicit agreement that they will further deliver entertainment related to their story through products that I purchase so that I may enjoy them on my own time, at my own pace. If I am forced to follow a commercial and advertising platform (which is all that social media has really become today, as per your own description) then it demonstrates a complete artistic failure on the part of the devs, and a horrible precedent that could very easily spiral out of control in the future.

I won't list again all the comparable examples to twitter (that you chose to omit) that demonstrate WHY Twitter is completely and categorically inappropriate for the transmissal of ANY story elements.

All the points you have made are based in fallacy and misrepresenting what I said, I hope you understand that if you continue in such a manner it would be very easy to classify you as nothing more than a troll. I hope that is not what you are doing.

Modifié par BiancoAngelo7, 25 avril 2012 - 12:42 .

[Vormaerin]

I didn't insult you. I said that you didn't use a word properly, because I assumed you did mean something and what you wrote didn't mean anything. What did you mean by disingenuous? Because what the word means is "to deceive by pretending to have less knowledge than one really has." That's clearly not what what is going on here, so I assumed you meant some other word.

You responded with this: " As for you thinking I don't understand what disingenuous means, I won't bother, because you either didn't understand the context of what I was saying when I used that word or are just grasping for any thinly veiled insult you can make to support your faulty argument." Which in no way is a meaningful response to what I said. No one is pretending to be less clever than they are to pull one over on you.

I'm not biased in favor of Twitter. I don't have a twitter account and I read about the emily wong thing in the wiki. But you have a circular argument. "Twitter isn't for telling stories because you shouldn't tell stories on it." I can make that same argument about "you don't know what you will see next" about serial novels, too, and they've been around for centuries.

People who actually use twitter seem to have greatly enjoyed the Emily Wong event, so I'm inclined to doubt that its a bad medium for story telling. People attacked graphic novels as being unable to tell real stories, too.

Mass Effect stories are told in game, in novels, in comics, on mobile apps, on twitter, and anime. All those media are effective ways to reach segments of the population. I suppose its valid to say that all those non game elements should just not be told. But complaining that you don't like stories in one medium is a subjective argument.

[BiancoAngelo7]

Vormaerin wrote...

I didn't insult you. I said that you didn't use a word properly, because I assumed you did mean something and what you wrote didn't mean anything. What did you mean by disingenuous? Because what the word means is "to deceive by pretending to have less knowledge than one really has." That's clearly not what what is going on here, so I assumed you meant some other word.

You responded with this: " As for you thinking I don't understand what disingenuous means, I won't bother, because you either didn't understand the context of what I was saying when I used that word or are just grasping for any thinly veiled insult you can make to support your faulty argument." Which in no way is a meaningful response to what I said. No one is pretending to be less clever than they are to pull one over on you.

I'm not biased in favor of Twitter. I don't have a twitter account and I read about the emily wong thing in the wiki. But you have a circular argument. "Twitter isn't for telling stories because you shouldn't tell stories on it." I can make that same argument about "you don't know what you will see next" about serial novels, too, and they've been around for centuries.

People who actually use twitter seem to have greatly enjoyed the Emily Wong event, so I'm inclined to doubt that its a bad medium for story telling. People attacked graphic novels as being unable to tell real stories, too.

Mass Effect stories are told in game, in novels, in comics, on mobile apps, on twitter, and anime. All those media are effective ways to reach segments of the population. I suppose its valid to say that all those non game elements should just not be told. But complaining that you don't like stories in one medium is a subjective argument.

You keep missing the point.

Twitter is a form of media meant for several different things. Chief among these is casual conversation among people in real life.

It is artistically and ethically unacceptable to use a form of media or any other device, that is used for several other things to convey a part of your story, no matter how minor or trivial one may deem it to be.

Again, I repeat to you, you keep talking about novels and other forms of media that are MADE for expressing their story and ONLY for expressing their story, comparing such forms of media to Twitter, which is NOT made just for expressing a story. It is a commercial and social device, which among many other uses, is used by REAL people to talk about REAL things.

It is the FIRST rule of any play, book, movie, game, ANYTHING that is in a media form. DON'T BREAK CHARACTER.

You cannot and MUST not express any portion of your story through a form of media that is NOT devoted to that sole purpose.

If Twitter was ONLY for the expressing of the Mass Effect story, then it would be fine. As it is now and has always been, it is a popular, (although not even KNOWN by everyone) form of SOCIAL media, used for SEVERAL purposes, LAST of which is the telling of the Mass Effect story.

I honestly don't understand what is so hard to understand about this. It is such a simple point, and it is irrefutable.

Modifié par BiancoAngelo7, 25 avril 2012 - 02:31 .

[Weskerr]

It would be like a novelist concluding the arc of one of his characters by writing a short blog about it online while not mentioning it in his actual novel.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Weskerr wrote...

It would be like a novelist concluding the arc of one of his characters by writing a short blog about it online while not mentioning it in his actual novel.

And if it was an extremely tertiary character who was barely involved in the first two novels, and was going to be left out of the concluding novel otherwise... yeah, I'd be okay with that.

Now, if Brandon Sanderson cut out Rand al'Thor from A Memory of Light and simply made a blog post about what happens to him, clearly THAT is insanely unacceptable, but... Emily Wong isn't that important, in the long run.

[Il Divo]

I hate Diana Allers, but I also don't consider Emily Wong to be a fan favorite. She was simply involved in a forgettable quest.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 avril 2012 - 03:18 .

[TweedleDee66]

Emily Wong or better still, Khalisah al-Jilani would have been preferred to Allers any day of the year. At least Khalisah al-Jilani was there in each game and pestering Shepard to get a story. Introducing a new character to replace one we already have in the game just seems lame.

Allers is a waste in every sense of the word.
-Reporter: doesn’t move at all on the ship or even visit the Citadel not many reporters stay in one room to get a war story.
-Romance: no last night love scene, dialog or achievement. Hell, not even a good luck kiss before the final battle.
-Character: just plain boring and is there only for sex appeal. The guy walking around on the ship that salutes you has more personality than her.

Killing Emily Wong on Twitter was just stupid. The least they could have done was kill her off on screen during a news report. I don’t do Twitter and I shouldn’t have to go to other sources to get the full story for a game. The same crap was pulled with Anderson suddenly no longer an ambassador (if you made him one), you have to apparently read a book to get the full story instead of giving him a few lines in the game.

The Tali photoshop picture was insulting to Tali (and Quarian) fans. Was it to much work to actually show us Tali’s face in the game? Probably so. They had to spend time making a messed up ending that even M. Knight Shyamalan would scratch his head at.

[The Milky Waver]

EA....

[Midz]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

I didn't insult you. I said that you didn't use a word properly, because I assumed you did mean something and what you wrote didn't mean anything. What did you mean by disingenuous? Because what the word means is "to deceive by pretending to have less knowledge than one really has." That's clearly not what what is going on here, so I assumed you meant some other word.

You responded with this: " As for you thinking I don't understand what disingenuous means, I won't bother, because you either didn't understand the context of what I was saying when I used that word or are just grasping for any thinly veiled insult you can make to support your faulty argument." Which in no way is a meaningful response to what I said. No one is pretending to be less clever than they are to pull one over on you.

I'm not biased in favor of Twitter. I don't have a twitter account and I read about the emily wong thing in the wiki. But you have a circular argument. "Twitter isn't for telling stories because you shouldn't tell stories on it." I can make that same argument about "you don't know what you will see next" about serial novels, too, and they've been around for centuries.

People who actually use twitter seem to have greatly enjoyed the Emily Wong event, so I'm inclined to doubt that its a bad medium for story telling. People attacked graphic novels as being unable to tell real stories, too.

Mass Effect stories are told in game, in novels, in comics, on mobile apps, on twitter, and anime. All those media are effective ways to reach segments of the population. I suppose its valid to say that all those non game elements should just not be told. But complaining that you don't like stories in one medium is a subjective argument.

You keep missing the point.

Twitter is a form of media meant for several different things. Chief among these is casual conversation among people in real life.

It is artistically and ethically unacceptable to use a form of media or any other device, that is used for several other things to convey a part of your story, no matter how minor or trivial one may deem it to be.

Again, I repeat to you, you keep talking about novels and other forms of media that are MADE for expressing their story and ONLY for expressing their story, comparing such forms of media to Twitter, which is NOT made just for expressing a story. It is a commercial and social device, which among many other uses, is used by REAL people to talk about REAL things.

It is the FIRST rule of any play, book, movie, game, ANYTHING that is in a media form. DON'T BREAK CHARACTER.

You cannot and MUST not express any portion of your story through a form of media that is NOT devoted to that sole purpose.

If Twitter was ONLY for the expressing of the Mass Effect story, then it would be fine. As it is now and has always been, it is a popular, (although not even KNOWN by everyone) form of SOCIAL media, used for SEVERAL purposes, LAST of which is the telling of the Mass Effect story.

I honestly don't understand what is so hard to understand about this. It is such a simple point, and it is irrefutable.

 The Account in Twitter was for that  sole purpose.

The  messages were repeated on the forums  and  other sites .

Until people started to play  self rightous idignation it was massively  viewed as a sucess ...simple task  look back at the feedback.

Then we get a so called poll with  skewed questions   ..

I think the English phrase that comes  mind  ( apologise my  english ).

A mountain  out of a molehill

[XTR3M3]

Oddly enough, I never considered Emily Wong to be a fan favorite either. That happened when they killed off her and ignored to possibility of Khalisah as the consultant to use someone new. Either would have worked far better than Allers. I understand why they put Chobot in there though. In RL she is an attractive lady that plays video games that also reports on games. Hot female gamers has always been kind of an urban legend so getting to see a real one and have her be in the game...great idea right? At least on paper. I don't even know if I could have predicted my own negative reaction to that choice.

Allers wasn't an iconic NPC, she was never meant to be. Emily Wong wasn't either. Some of the negativity could certainly be pointed at Chobot's affiliation with IGN. It does feel like your house got robbed and then you find out the robber is the judge and the accomplice is the prosecuting attorney.

RIP Emily Wong. Your death and being usurped by a new reporter whose developer links were suspect have vaulted you into being a fan favorite. In a way, she is like marauder shields.....nothing by themselves, but what they now stand for is greater than what they were.

Modifié par XTR3M3, 25 avril 2012 - 03:40 .

[BiancoAngelo7]

Midz wrote...

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

I didn't insult you. I said that you didn't use a word properly, because I assumed you did mean something and what you wrote didn't mean anything. What did you mean by disingenuous? Because what the word means is "to deceive by pretending to have less knowledge than one really has." That's clearly not what what is going on here, so I assumed you meant some other word.

You responded with this: " As for you thinking I don't understand what disingenuous means, I won't bother, because you either didn't understand the context of what I was saying when I used that word or are just grasping for any thinly veiled insult you can make to support your faulty argument." Which in no way is a meaningful response to what I said. No one is pretending to be less clever than they are to pull one over on you.

I'm not biased in favor of Twitter. I don't have a twitter account and I read about the emily wong thing in the wiki. But you have a circular argument. "Twitter isn't for telling stories because you shouldn't tell stories on it." I can make that same argument about "you don't know what you will see next" about serial novels, too, and they've been around for centuries.

People who actually use twitter seem to have greatly enjoyed the Emily Wong event, so I'm inclined to doubt that its a bad medium for story telling. People attacked graphic novels as being unable to tell real stories, too.

Mass Effect stories are told in game, in novels, in comics, on mobile apps, on twitter, and anime. All those media are effective ways to reach segments of the population. I suppose its valid to say that all those non game elements should just not be told. But complaining that you don't like stories in one medium is a subjective argument.

You keep missing the point.

Twitter is a form of media meant for several different things. Chief among these is casual conversation among people in real life.

It is artistically and ethically unacceptable to use a form of media or any other device, that is used for several other things to convey a part of your story, no matter how minor or trivial one may deem it to be.

Again, I repeat to you, you keep talking about novels and other forms of media that are MADE for expressing their story and ONLY for expressing their story, comparing such forms of media to Twitter, which is NOT made just for expressing a story. It is a commercial and social device, which among many other uses, is used by REAL people to talk about REAL things.

It is the FIRST rule of any play, book, movie, game, ANYTHING that is in a media form. DON'T BREAK CHARACTER.

You cannot and MUST not express any portion of your story through a form of media that is NOT devoted to that sole purpose.

If Twitter was ONLY for the expressing of the Mass Effect story, then it would be fine. As it is now and has always been, it is a popular, (although not even KNOWN by everyone) form of SOCIAL media, used for SEVERAL purposes, LAST of which is the telling of the Mass Effect story.

I honestly don't understand what is so hard to understand about this. It is such a simple point, and it is irrefutable.

 The Account in Twitter was for that  sole purpose.

The  messages were repeated on the forums  and  other sites .

Until people started to play  self rightous idignation it was massively  viewed as a sucess ...simple task  look back at the feedback.

Then we get a so called poll with  skewed questions   ..

I think the English phrase that comes  mind  ( apologise my  english ).

A mountain  out of a molehill

Good Lord how is it SO hard to understand such a SIMPLE concept?

It doesn't matter if THAT account on Twitter was for that purpose. TWITTER itself is not a form of media for the telling of the story of Mass Effect. It is a SOCIAL Media Web site, for communication among REAL people in the REAL world, among MANY other things. Good grief at least read what I wrote if you're gonna quote it.

It doesn't matter how many times it was announced on the forums or other sites, do you know how many fans of Mass Effect are like me? People have jobs, have lives, we can't spend all day or all year keeping up to date with fu**ing SOCIAL websites like Twitter and Forums. We buy the PRODUCTS, and we expect to get the full experience there.

Massive success?? You mean to say that the people that were following Twitter said how much they liked following Twitter plus reading about Mass Effect? WOW. SHOCKER. All the "indignation" as you call it, came later when all those people that don't give a flying fu*k about Twitter started showing up again around release time. IE: Those people like me with jobs and lives etc..

Poll with skewed questions?
I wish you and a few others would stop whining about this. The poll has two positive options, two negative options, and a neutral option. That is the definition of fair numbers. Just because the options are not "yes" or "no" does not make them skewed. Rather, you disagree with the options that are selected the most, and since the options are worded to express more than a simple "yes" or "no" YOU take offense at it, so you blame it all on the poll being skewed, when in fact it is your own personal bias that is skewed.

I understand for your English, congratulations on it, if it is not your first language it is actually quite good, keep up the practice 

But I am sorry, it is not making a mountain out of a mole hill...this is a slap in the face to the fans, disrespectful of their own work, past and present, and it is ESPECIALLY insulting when you consider they couldn't be bothered to model Tali's face, but they modelled a fu**ing gaming website "journalist".


Oh and for the record, for everyone else, I never said that Emily Wong was a "fan favorite" the principle is that introducing Jessica Chobot as Diana Allers while having all the other issues related to her (killing Wong on Twitter, not modelling Tali but doing a full Chobot in game, and ignoring the potential for Al Jilani to be our reporter and work through the conflict with her since ME1 with the whole "I punched you" thing) screams of artistic laziness, commercialism in a game that is supposedly "art" and a complete betrayal of the intelligence of the fans and the realism and quality of their own game universe.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Frankly I don't even know who Chobot the robot is, but she's not a good character. There's little to no dialogue with her; as a romance option she's as interesting as a rock; and the clothing she wears both looks ridiculous and is utterly unrealistic for a war reporter.

Wong would have been much better.