324 réponses à ce sujet

[John Epler]

Eain wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Skyline45 wrote...

John Epler wrote...

As with all BioWare staff, his opinion is his own.

I'm of the school of thought that 'if you consume a product, you are welcome to criticize and critique it'. That doesn't mean that, occasionally, you aren't going to necessarily understand something that's rather specialized - but why would you? It's not your job to know about things like production and resource costs. That's the job of the company - all you need to know is 'did I enjoy the product' and 'what parts of the game did I or did I not enjoy'.

If I dont know the details you describe then how can I make an informed purchase as a consumer?

Because the details that should inform your purchase aren't things like 'how many man hours is it going to take to implement this feature' or 'what's the cost of outsourcing X art asset versus doing it in-house', but rather 'does this feature do what I want' or 'is this content the sort of thing I'm going to enjoy?' That's what I mean when I talk about things that, as a ocnsumer, you won't necessarily understand.

So what happens when the spokespersons for a game development studio start promising one type of content while giving another, and then try to justify it afterwards with dev-speak that we were never supposed to care about in the first place?

If the question sounds hostile that's because it's an inherently unpleasant question. I can't do much about that. But I still think it deserves asking.

If you're talking about me when referring to 'dev-speak', then I'm not sure how to answer this question, particularly as it was intended as a 'yes, there are some details that consumers aren't going to be privy to or necessarily understand, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have every right to offer criticism and critique' post. It's a fact of any business - there are, both due to legal issues and issues of privileged information, certain things that the end user will never know.

If you're referring to others, then I'm not really comfortable answering, as I'm not a member of the ME team and it's really not up to me to comment, sorry.

[Meltemph]

Paul Barnett is a good hype machinist, and that is about it. I remember watching his dev blogs when they were making Warhammer Online, very much helped over hype that game...

Long story short, dont take what he says to seriously, he really is a company man(in terms of his ability to make everything sound superduper), and really knows how to tell a story.  Other then that, I wouldnt really put to much stock in anything he says. Paul is great for blowing up things to a bigger deal or amount then they really are and is great at talking things up.

His arguments and opinions typically rely on tugging on peoples emotions and normally is very quick to play to the crowed in front of him. At least, for the amount of time I have been paying attention to him in some capacity(quite a few years), this is my take on him. He is a mouth piece because he is considered by more then enough, to be considered good at talking. Beyond that, imo, he has no redeemable qualities in terms of effecting the games, that I or a consumer in general can see.

Modifié par Meltemph, 01 mai 2012 - 05:50 .

[Taboo]

IanPolaris wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

My college education. My years of studying film,psychology,ethics and philospophy mean nothing to EA I guess.

Awe. Pure awe.

(In the Voice of Sovereign)

We are Bioware.  You fumble in our greatness incapable of understanding.  You gripe because you allow it, and you will buy because we DEMAND it.

-Polaris

Nah, see my education has allowed me to make inferences. The lack of inference is what has gotten Bioware into this mess.

I will dissent because my education has given me that ability.

[John Epler]

Skyline45 wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Skyline45 wrote...

John Epler wrote...

As with all BioWare staff, his opinion is his own.

I'm of the school of thought that 'if you consume a product, you are welcome to criticize and critique it'. That doesn't mean that, occasionally, you aren't going to necessarily understand something that's rather specialized - but why would you? It's not your job to know about things like production and resource costs. That's the job of the company - all you need to know is 'did I enjoy the product' and 'what parts of the game did I or did I not enjoy'.

If I dont know the details you describe then how can I make an informed purchase as a consumer?

Because the details that should inform your purchase aren't things like 'how many man hours is it going to take to implement this feature' or 'what's the cost of outsourcing X art asset versus doing it in-house', but rather 'does this feature do what I want' or 'is this content the sort of thing I'm going to enjoy?' That's what I mean when I talk about things that, as a ocnsumer, you won't necessarily understand.

So if I find out that a company for example uses outscourcing for their product that not only reduces the cost of said production cost but also reduces the quality of said product it wouldnt influence my decsion in purchasing said product?

If that's important to you, then that's entirely your prerogative, but it's not information we're going to be releasing. Things such as resource allocation and development costs are privileged information, and it's information that very few businesses (especially publicly traded ones, due to SEC regulations) are ever going to release. If that makes you not want to purchase our products, that's your right and responsibility as a consumer, but it's not going to change whether or not we release this kind of data.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

John Epler wrote...

Eain wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Skyline45 wrote...

John Epler wrote...

As with all BioWare staff, his opinion is his own.

I'm of the school of thought that 'if you consume a product, you are welcome to criticize and critique it'. That doesn't mean that, occasionally, you aren't going to necessarily understand something that's rather specialized - but why would you? It's not your job to know about things like production and resource costs. That's the job of the company - all you need to know is 'did I enjoy the product' and 'what parts of the game did I or did I not enjoy'.

If I dont know the details you describe then how can I make an informed purchase as a consumer?

Because the details that should inform your purchase aren't things like 'how many man hours is it going to take to implement this feature' or 'what's the cost of outsourcing X art asset versus doing it in-house', but rather 'does this feature do what I want' or 'is this content the sort of thing I'm going to enjoy?' That's what I mean when I talk about things that, as a ocnsumer, you won't necessarily understand.

So what happens when the spokespersons for a game development studio start promising one type of content while giving another, and then try to justify it afterwards with dev-speak that we were never supposed to care about in the first place?

If the question sounds hostile that's because it's an inherently unpleasant question. I can't do much about that. But I still think it deserves asking.

If you're talking about me when referring to 'dev-speak', then I'm not sure how to answer this question, particularly as it was intended as a 'yes, there are some details that consumers aren't going to be privy to or necessarily understand, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have every right to offer criticism and critique' post. It's a fact of any business - there are, both due to legal issues and issues of privileged information, certain things that the end user will never know.

If you're referring to others, then I'm not really comfortable answering, as I'm not a member of the ME team and it's really not up to me to comment, sorry.

Thanks for your posts, John.  It's always good to get a BW point of view.

[IanPolaris]

termokanden wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

I would be happy if game developers realized two things:

1. We're smarter than you think.

2. Some of us are smarter than YOU.

It's true. But it's not very ego-gratifying, so I don't expect the idea to really catch on.

I got to the 10 minute mark before I got bored. Nothing really insulting so far, although I can see how it can be interpreted that way. But he spends most of the time joking, so I'm not really entirely sure what his point is.

I'm a software developer myself. Not a game developer though. I feel it's important to keep in mind that while you as a developer are definitely going to be smarter when it comes to the technical aspects of your product, that doesn't mean you know the first thing about using it or which features would be good or bad. You are simply not fit to judge it on your own.

Well at about the 3 minute mark or so, he flat out SAYS that if you aren't a game maker, then he doesn't care about your opinions AND HIS AUDIENCED APPLAUDED.

...and we wonder what's wrong with modern game studios....

-Polaris

[Kunari801]

John Epler wrote...

As with all BioWare staff, his opinion is his own.

I'm of the school of thought that 'if you consume a product, you are welcome to criticize and critique it'. That doesn't mean that, occasionally, you aren't going to necessarily understand something that's rather specialized - but why would you? It's not your job to know about things like production and resource costs. That's the job of the company - all you need to know is 'did I enjoy the product' and 'what parts of the game did I or did I not enjoy'.

Thanks for posting John.  I hope most folks at BW subscribe to your "school of thought". 

[termokanden]

IanPolaris wrote...

Well at about the 3 minute mark or so, he flat out SAYS that if you aren't a game maker, then he doesn't care about your opinions AND HIS AUDIENCED APPLAUDED.

...and we wonder what's wrong with modern game studios....

-Polaris

I honestly thought he was talking about becoming a game maker, not about people's opinions on games. Perhaps that's my misinterpretation.

[crimzontearz]

then let me ask you a question John. As a consumer who does nlot want to feel ripped off should I not be alnlowed to know truthfully which budged was used to create content? (and yes this question got me yelled at by one of your colleagues in the DAO team)

[Thorvale]

The speaker probably feels like he is Ricky Gervais

[Meltemph]

If that's important to you, then that's entirely your prerogative, but it's not information we're going to be releasing. Things such as resource allocation and development costs are privileged information, and it's information that very few businesses (especially publicly traded ones, due to SEC regulations) are ever going to release. If that makes you not want to purchase our products, that's your right and responsibility as a consumer, but it's not going to change whether or not we release this kind of data.

I agree that this info is not important to the consumer...until a developer tries to subtly use their "time investment" as a defense of their game. Many Dev's and Publishers alike, have a tendency(hell a lot of companies do this, and I'm not sure why they are not stopped at doing so, since it is considered a no-no, in most cases) to use their investment into the creation of a franchise as an excuse or defense of their vision or how the game is in-fact as good as they think it is.

That kind of information only becomes a problem, imo, when the producer tries to use it as a justification against the consumer.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

crimzontearz wrote...

then let me ask you a question John. As a consumer who does nlot want to feel ripped off should I not be alnlowed to know truthfully which budged was used to create content? (and yes this question got me yelled at by one of your colleagues in the DAO team)

There's no reason why you need that sort of data to evaluate your purchase.  All you need to ask yourself is, what was this gaming experience worth to me?  Did it exceed, equal, or fall short of what I paid for it?

Modifié par CmnDwnWrkn, 01 mai 2012 - 06:01 .

[Titan_HQ]

tangalin wrote...

I DO make games. The ending is still terrible.

This, though only as a hobby mind you.

[Jostle]

flub3 wrote...

This is how companies start to go under. Pride always accompanies the fall. He is literally taking a crap on Economics 101. I don't understand how EA is actually a somewhat successful cooperation with loonies like him involved.

He literally took a crap on Economics 101? Yeah, that's not how that word works.

Anyway: oh, Paul Barnett, you cheeky bugger. I saw this video a day or two ago and wasn't surprised in the least, except that there was no mention of him being a part of whatever bioware-mythic is. If I hadn't already known that I would have been a lot more outraged. Having played Warhammer Online for quite a while and watching it die in Mark Jacobs hands with Paul Barnett's face telling me how awesome it all was, I am quite used to his particular brand of smarm and general ickiness.

Having said that, this clown is doing bioware no favors in speaking such a way. I guess this guy doesn't have a favorite shirt, because he doesn't work in a factory. Now I believe people are entitled to opinions. Consumers can opine about their products, PR idiots can opine about consumers not having a valid opinion, and his boss can have the opinion that he should be fired. Or not.

Modifié par Jostle, 01 mai 2012 - 06:07 .

[Siansonea]

termokanden wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

I would be happy if game developers realized two things:

1. We're smarter than you think.

2. Some of us are smarter than YOU.

It's true. But it's not very ego-gratifying, so I don't expect the idea to really catch on.

I got to the 10 minute mark before I got bored. Nothing really insulting so far, although I can see how it can be interpreted that way. But he spends most of the time joking, so I'm not really entirely sure what his point is.

I'm a software developer myself. Not a game developer though. I feel it's important to keep in mind that while you as a developer are definitely going to be smarter when it comes to the technical aspects of your product, that doesn't mean you know the first thing about using it or which features would be good or bad. You are simply not fit to judge it on your own.

So you missed the whole bit about how "until you've put out a game you can't really have a decent conversation about games"? l33tist much?

[tamperous]

By his logic, unless you've governed a country before you have no right to vote or have anything critical to say about the government.

So I guess we should be thankful that most video game developers can't beat themselves out of a wet paper bag.

[termokanden]

Siansonea II wrote...

So you missed the whole bit about how "until you've put out a game you can't really have a decent conversation about games"? l33tist much?

Again, I thought he was talking about making games, and that was where you didn't know until you had tried it. I acknowledge that this may be a misinterpretation, given that the sound quality was poor and I was a bit distracted by the blend of jokes and possibly serious statements.

Just don't be too quick to judge before it's clear what people are saying. People are actively searching the internet for new interviews and speeches to dissect involving BioWare employees. This is why I'm being extra, extra careful before I cry foul.

In case you are interested in my opinion, check out the rest of my original post.

Modifié par termokanden, 01 mai 2012 - 06:11 .

[AlexXIV]

John Epler wrote...

Skyline45 wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Skyline45 wrote...

John Epler wrote...

As with all BioWare staff, his opinion is his own.

I'm of the school of thought that 'if you consume a product, you are welcome to criticize and critique it'. That doesn't mean that, occasionally, you aren't going to necessarily understand something that's rather specialized - but why would you? It's not your job to know about things like production and resource costs. That's the job of the company - all you need to know is 'did I enjoy the product' and 'what parts of the game did I or did I not enjoy'.

If I dont know the details you describe then how can I make an informed purchase as a consumer?

Because the details that should inform your purchase aren't things like 'how many man hours is it going to take to implement this feature' or 'what's the cost of outsourcing X art asset versus doing it in-house', but rather 'does this feature do what I want' or 'is this content the sort of thing I'm going to enjoy?' That's what I mean when I talk about things that, as a ocnsumer, you won't necessarily understand.

So if I find out that a company for example uses outscourcing for their product that not only reduces the cost of said production cost but also reduces the quality of said product it wouldnt influence my decsion in purchasing said product?

If that's important to you, then that's entirely your prerogative, but it's not information we're going to be releasing. Things such as resource allocation and development costs are privileged information, and it's information that very few businesses (especially publicly traded ones, due to SEC regulations) are ever going to release. If that makes you not want to purchase our products, that's your right and responsibility as a consumer, but it's not going to change whether or not we release this kind of data.

I know this is nothing that can be changed in next future, expecially not by any of us. But I think this 'privileged information' thing is something that is horribly wrong in our society. Even in captialism consumers should have as much information of the product they buy as they need. Doesn't need to be a glass house so that we can see developers at work or so, but in most cases customers can only guess what they are buying and if they ever learn what they bought, or in some cases what mistake they made, it is to late. Well not necessarily with videogames because they are relatively safe. But I think some time in the future development of all products will be alot more transparent simply because people will demand it more and more and politics and industry at some point can't refuse. But I am ranting off topic.

[Swisspease]

What a small minded person if he thinks that only other people who make games are qualified to comment on them. I think authors would have alot of input on the game's story, but I guess they can't comment since they don't make games, just write for a living.

[AlexXIV]

tamperous wrote...

By his logic, unless you've governed a country before you have no right to vote or have anything critical to say about the government.

So I guess we should be thankful that most video game developers can't beat themselves out of a wet paper bag.

The good thing is, since he is a game developer, he can only complain about that and nothing else. For example the weather. Is he a metereologist? No. So the weather is always fine, because he can't judge.

[Little Princess Peach]

ShepnTali wrote...

So, Roger Ebert should STFU 'cause he doesn't make movies?

I thaught he was an actor?

[The Angry One]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

So, Roger Ebert should STFU 'cause he doesn't make movies?

I thaught he was an actor?

He is a screenwriter. However according to Barnett's logic he still isn't qualified to make criticisms, as he hasn't as far as I know written for a Hollywood blockbuster. So who is he to talk about Hollywood blockbusters right?

[Kronner]

No wonder EA is such a bad company when people like Barnett are employed over there.

[delphonic]

You know that Roger Ebert? That guy is such a hack!

Who cares what he thinks!? The guy has never even made one movie!

[Sean]

John Epler wrote...

Eain wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Skyline45 wrote...

John Epler wrote...

As with all BioWare staff, his opinion is his own.

I'm of the school of thought that 'if you consume a product, you are welcome to criticize and critique it'. That doesn't mean that, occasionally, you aren't going to necessarily understand something that's rather specialized - but why would you? It's not your job to know about things like production and resource costs. That's the job of the company - all you need to know is 'did I enjoy the product' and 'what parts of the game did I or did I not enjoy'.

If I dont know the details you describe then how can I make an informed purchase as a consumer?

Because the details that should inform your purchase aren't things like 'how many man hours is it going to take to implement this feature' or 'what's the cost of outsourcing X art asset versus doing it in-house', but rather 'does this feature do what I want' or 'is this content the sort of thing I'm going to enjoy?' That's what I mean when I talk about things that, as a ocnsumer, you won't necessarily understand.

So what happens when the spokespersons for a game development studio start promising one type of content while giving another, and then try to justify it afterwards with dev-speak that we were never supposed to care about in the first place?

If the question sounds hostile that's because it's an inherently unpleasant question. I can't do much about that. But I still think it deserves asking.

If you're talking about me when referring to 'dev-speak', then I'm not sure how to answer this question, particularly as it was intended as a 'yes, there are some details that consumers aren't going to be privy to or necessarily understand, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have every right to offer criticism and critique' post. It's a fact of any business - there are, both due to legal issues and issues of privileged information, certain things that the end user will never know.

If you're referring to others, then I'm not really comfortable answering, as I'm not a member of the ME team and it's really not up to me to comment, sorry.

What about things like saying "...[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers." - From Mac Walters (February, 28, 2012)

or even this about the endings:
“Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we hhttp://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/04/28/casey-hudson-interview-mass-effect-3.aspxave the ability to
build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about
eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is
coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot
more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many
decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that
stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them.” -from Casey Hudson. (April, 28, 2011, yes it is over a year but why go back on that?)


or this about multiplayer and "best" endings:
"I’m always leery of saying there are “optimal”
endings, because I think one of the things we do try to do is make
different endings that are optimal for different people, but I know what
they mean, they’re talking about the gameplay optimal ending, and the
single player has all of the assets that you need to be able
to achieve that." -from Mac Walters (March 5, 2012)


I know that you are from the Dragon Age team but even as part of a dev team, why say these things when the opposite happens?

The rachni are only shown in one mission yet he makes it sound like you see them and that was only from days prior to release, then there's Casey saying that the ending isn't just A, B, or C when the oppsoite also came true and finally about multiplayer, that was 1 day prior to release and yet it has been proven to get the "best" ending you NEED to play the multiplayer because of the galactic readiness.

Why say these things if they aren't true?

How would customers be able to have any trust with Bioware (at least Casey and Mac) if what is said isn't true?

There is even a whole topic dedicated to showing the interviews with the quotes that show things that didn't happen.

Modifié par RX_Sean_XI, 01 mai 2012 - 06:19 .