181 réponses à ce sujet

[ReXspec]

Afalstein wrote...

There are a couple arguments against Bioware giving out a different ending. The first is logistical--depending on the complexity of the ending you want (different endings? That reflect your different decisions?), such an ending could require a lot of coding, even alterations to earlier segments of the game. And if you want voices, they have to hire the voice actors all over again and do new CGI sequences... an awful lot for something that Bioware would (hopefully) give out for free.

The second is more abstract and principled. In terms of storywriting, the ending is as much a part of the story as anything else. You can't say the ending to, say, Inception is stupid and ought to be changed, because it's an integral part of the story that informs and affects everything that came before.

That being said, the ending to "Inception" is a clever and wholly consistent ending while the one to ME3? Not quite so much. So while a part of me dislikes the idea of Bioware rewriting an ending--and essentially most of a game's point--simply to please fans; another part of me is a somewhat displeased fan who would like a better ending.

For a company that is backed by an even larger company with resources that are virtually unlimited, development difficulties are irrelevent.  Bioware is obligated to correct the mistakes they made.  The whole reason being that video games are a medium of artisticness that involve the fans.  You can't cut fans out of the equations and expect not to f*ck up eventually.

[sth88]

chemiclord wrote...

Who knows why they don't want to change it? I don't. You don't. No one here does.

All that matters is that they don't want to, and its their right as creators of the property to not do so. If you don't like it... don't buy their **** anymore, and find something you DO like.

Problem solved.

Oh, don't worry.  If the EC fails to fix the ending, Bioware won't get another dime from me ever again, and I will encourage all my friends not to buy Bioware games, either.

[ahandsomeshark]

cause it would take a lot of money and time and major companies prefer any outcome that doesn't involve excess money and time.

Also because media companies in general are obsessed with 100% control over final output.

[Shaoken]

Because logistically changing an ending would be a nightmare; in films all you have to do is just shoot the different scene and then put that in the film instead. In games you basically have to go back four or five months into development, start making a new ending which requires a lot more people than shooting an ending, you need to make sure that the new ending seamlessly replaces the old one, so that's a month or two of going over every line of code to make sure there's no errors, that all of the new resources work correctly, etc.

That costs money. A lot of money, ie more than normal DLC costs could cover. There's no way in hell EA would ever sign off on such a proposal.

The other reason is that it sets a bad precident; no other game in history has outright changed the ending to their game based on fan-feedback; people keep pointing to Fallout 3 and Broken Steel, but BS only changed one opition and added three line of dialogue to the ending, then expanded on the ending to show that no matter what you didn't die and things kept happening. So if a game company changes the ending based on fan feedback, what happens next? Is it suddenly okay for fans to demand that any part of a game they don't like gets changed via patch? Are endings now going to be made by fan committe?

Artistic Integrity, as much as it's become a forced meme as of late, means respecting a creator's effort, even if they screwed up big time.

[nategator]

Because you can't please all of the critics. Some complain that they don't mind the endings per se, they just mind that it wasn't properly explained and ended too abruptly with no real closure for the supporting staff. Others complain that they should have been given more choice over defining their personal ending. And then there is the very vocal group that hate the endings period and want a retcon by bootstrapping KOTOR's plotline onto Mass Effect, diluting indoctrination into merely resisting the dark side.

From Bioware's perspective, especially the guys who are calling the shots, they figure they can just add context to the ending and some more closure scenes with the supporting cast and that will be enough for the majority of fans. It's the cheapest option and they may be right. After all, most of the complaints are over Joker "abandoning" the fight, the relay explosion issue, and the endings didn't make much sense. Those only require some cheap cutscenes to fix. Same with the saying goodbye to the supporting case, which makes the ending more individualized and is again cheaply instituted.

And if that fails, then Bioware can always go back and give an alternative ending -- for $20 DLC. Or they can just release ME4 with Shepard and claim that they learned through "feedback" that it's the players who forced them to recycle Shepard's story because the fanbase was not willing to let go.

Modifié par nategator, 08 mai 2012 - 01:49 .

[ChildOfEden]

Devil Mingy wrote...

carrmatt91 wrote...

Archereon wrote...

It's because Casey Hudson wants the series to end with Mass Effect 3. Whatever they do, it'll change things in a way that still makes a followup to ME3 impossible.

if they wanted it to end with mass effect 3 then why kill off shepard only for you to see a cliffhanger of an ending of him/her breathingfor a second (if you do well enough) just for the game to end with stargazer telling the kid that theres one more story? and on top of that add no closure to show what happens after the battle anyway?

To paraphrase a quote from Bioware's PAX conference, they didn't know we wanted closure.

You're not paraphrasing, that's actually what they said.

[ReXspec]

chemiclord wrote...

Who knows why they don't want to change it? I don't. You don't. No one here does.

All that matters is that they don't want to, and its their right as creators of the property to not do so. If you don't like it... don't buy their **** anymore, and find something you DO like.

Problem solved.

Claiming the "artistic vision" argument is broken for several reasons.  You can't cut fans out of the development phases.  Doing so not only leads to collossal screw-ups, but also loses fans, and therefore, profits.

Bioware is in damage control right now because they are desperately trying to maintain customer loyalty and, therefore, long-term profit.

[ahandsomeshark]

also the idea it sets a bad precedent is absurd. Fan outcry isn't the reason they'd change it, fear of future lost profits is why they changed it (and the reason they'd do an EC). And fear of lost profits is what drives basically every decision every publicly traded company makes (and most private ones). Don't think for a second EA is doing anything for any reason other than cost analysis saying its the best decision for them. So yeah if fans say an ending sucks, the company should either change it or at least outright admit they effed up and promise to do better, because the entire point is selling the product.

There is no new precedent being set. Changing a product if your customers aren't happy is a precedent that was probably set sometime 30,000 years ago.

[Reign762]

nhcre8tv1 wrote...

It sets a bad precident for other things if this were to happen again. People would be all like "WELL MASS EFFECT DID IT Y U NO U GUYS" and it gives a message out that all writers and studios can be pushed around, look at how we destroyed the Fallout 3 argument, when in reality it was the devs who changed it because THEY didn't like it, not because of the fan outcry, but that doesn't matter here, does it? No matter how you think of this, that WILL happen, and all writers would lose credibility.

Huh ... I guess Sherlock Holmes lost credibility then.

[nategator]

ReXspec wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Who knows why they don't want to change it? I don't. You don't. No one here does.

All that matters is that they don't want to, and its their right as creators of the property to not do so. If you don't like it... don't buy their **** anymore, and find something you DO like.

Problem solved.

Claiming the "artistic vision" argument is broken for several reasons.  You can't cut fans out of the development phases.  Doing so not only leads to collossal screw-ups, but also loses fans, and therefore, profits.

Bioware is in damage control right now because they are desperately trying to maintain customer loyalty and, therefore, long-term profit.

Of course you cut fans out of development phases.  Otherwise you spoil them.  You may run focus groups or occasionally leak a detail, but that has limited utility in guessing fan reaction.  You have to keep the broad strokes of any creative endeavor away from the fans or you won't be able to sell them the finished product.

[ahandsomeshark]

also I'd rather believe they were intending on charging us 20 dollars for the real ending than believe they didn't know we wanted closure. The former is just typical EA evil, the latter means they've apparently lost their damn minds and are completely disconnected from the fanbase, and from what makes their own games great, and that there's no reason I should expect any better in the future.

[RavenEchoseven]

BioWare doesn't want to set that precedent for themselves. Regardless of what others have done, if they relent once, they'll be expected to do so again. They are standing by their creation, regardless of fan backlash. Keep in mind that the majority of professional critics are supporting BioWare in this stance.

[Shaoken]

ReXspec wrote...

Afalstein wrote...

There are a couple arguments against Bioware giving out a different ending. The first is logistical--depending on the complexity of the ending you want (different endings? That reflect your different decisions?), such an ending could require a lot of coding, even alterations to earlier segments of the game. And if you want voices, they have to hire the voice actors all over again and do new CGI sequences... an awful lot for something that Bioware would (hopefully) give out for free.

The second is more abstract and principled. In terms of storywriting, the ending is as much a part of the story as anything else. You can't say the ending to, say, Inception is stupid and ought to be changed, because it's an integral part of the story that informs and affects everything that came before.

That being said, the ending to "Inception" is a clever and wholly consistent ending while the one to ME3? Not quite so much. So while a part of me dislikes the idea of Bioware rewriting an ending--and essentially most of a game's point--simply to please fans; another part of me is a somewhat displeased fan who would like a better ending.

For a company that is backed by an even larger company with resources that are virtually unlimited, development difficulties are irrelevent.  Bioware is obligated to correct the mistakes they made.  The whole reason being that video games are a medium of artisticness that involve the fans.  You can't cut fans out of the equations and expect not to f*ck up eventually.

You know last time I checked EA was not backed by Bill Gates; there is no such thing as virtualyl unlimited resources. EA is a publisher of a lot of different game companies, why should Bioware get unlimited resources and not Visceral? And EA is a business; no business is obligated to correct every mistake they make because they have to pay to fix these mistakes, and anyone foolish enough to try would be bankrupted by theeffort.

And you're making the foolish assumpton that no limits will equal a good game. That is just wrong, and I have three words to prove it; Duke. Nukem. Forever. Had the publisher put their foot down and said "you only have X years and Y dollars to make this game" we probably would have gotten something decent out of it, but instead without boundries the team kept getting close to a releasable product and then rolled back to incorporate the newest technology or the newest gameplay inovation.

And where did you get this notion that the fans had to be involved in the creation process? For about two decades no fan had much of a say in the development of any game and yet we still got great games.

[Wintermaulz]

 Artistic integrity 

[ahandsomeshark]

Also I don't want Bioware to fill me in on every process of development. I want them to follow basic narrative structure. That's not that hard, I've seen it done. I don't care what you write as long as it makes sense. [SPOILER ALERT FOR GAME OF THRONES]. I love Robb Stark so much I want to take him behind a middle school and get him pregnant, but I made it through the red wedding because it made sense. The problem with these endings is they jut make no damn sense on even the most basic writing level.

[DOHC46]

Baa Baa wrote...

This is something that I don't understand on BioWare's part. Movies get released all the time with alternate endings that just weren't right for theaters, why can't BioWare give us an alternate ending to the game? It wouldn't ****** off the people who enjoy the ending, and the people who dislike/hated the ending can be pleased as well (if they spend a good amount of time on it). Another thing I dislike about them deciding not to give us a new or changed ending is the fact that they think that it will damage them in some way. Bethesda did this with Fallout 3 and that wasn't even a terrible ending, it was just very meh. And look at them, Bethesda is known as one of the best gaming companies out there and it hasn't negatively affected them. All BioWare needs to do is make an alt ending dlc and not an update. This way pro enders can get what they want, and people who dislike the ending can get what they want. Just my two cents.

Oh and I just couldn't help but share this vid...
Thanks for reading

This is all I want!  I've stated in other posts that an alternate ending should be available, and they don't have to change or remove the existing one.

The real reason BioWare won't come up with an unlockable/optional alternate ending has nothing to do with "artistic integrity."  They don't have the balls to admit they were wrong.  Plain and simple.  Nevermind they are probably one or two more flop or ****storms away from getting disbanded by EA, but what do I know?  I'm just a vocal minority...

[ahandsomeshark]

Shaoken wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Afalstein wrote...

There are a couple arguments against Bioware giving out a different ending. The first is logistical--depending on the complexity of the ending you want (different endings? That reflect your different decisions?), such an ending could require a lot of coding, even alterations to earlier segments of the game. And if you want voices, they have to hire the voice actors all over again and do new CGI sequences... an awful lot for something that Bioware would (hopefully) give out for free.

The second is more abstract and principled. In terms of storywriting, the ending is as much a part of the story as anything else. You can't say the ending to, say, Inception is stupid and ought to be changed, because it's an integral part of the story that informs and affects everything that came before.

That being said, the ending to "Inception" is a clever and wholly consistent ending while the one to ME3? Not quite so much. So while a part of me dislikes the idea of Bioware rewriting an ending--and essentially most of a game's point--simply to please fans; another part of me is a somewhat displeased fan who would like a better ending.

For a company that is backed by an even larger company with resources that are virtually unlimited, development difficulties are irrelevent.  Bioware is obligated to correct the mistakes they made.  The whole reason being that video games are a medium of artisticness that involve the fans.  You can't cut fans out of the equations and expect not to f*ck up eventually.

You know last time I checked EA was not backed by Bill Gates; there is no such thing as virtualyl unlimited resources. EA is a publisher of a lot of different game companies, why should Bioware get unlimited resources and not Visceral? And EA is a business; no business is obligated to correct every mistake they make because they have to pay to fix these mistakes, and anyone foolish enough to try would be bankrupted by theeffort.

um yes they are. that's kind of the point of the market. If a business makes mistakes they either fix it or lose customers. What will cause EA to go bankrupt is destroying brand loyalty.

[Shaoken]

Reign762 wrote...

nhcre8tv1 wrote...

It sets a bad precident for other things if this were to happen again. People would be all like "WELL MASS EFFECT DID IT Y U NO U GUYS" and it gives a message out that all writers and studios can be pushed around, look at how we destroyed the Fallout 3 argument, when in reality it was the devs who changed it because THEY didn't like it, not because of the fan outcry, but that doesn't matter here, does it? No matter how you think of this, that WILL happen, and all writers would lose credibility.

Huh ... I guess Sherlock Holmes lost credibility then.

*SIGH* The story where Holmes died has never been changed, not one bit. Doyle just made another book that EXPANDED on the ending of the previous one to CLARIFY how Sherlock Holmes survived his fight with Morarity and why he didn't tell Watson.

Making a sequal /= changing an ending post-release.

[Afalstein]

ReXspec wrote...

Afalstein wrote...

There are a couple arguments against Bioware giving out a different ending. The first is logistical--depending on the complexity of the ending you want (different endings? That reflect your different decisions?), such an ending could require a lot of coding, even alterations to earlier segments of the game. And if you want voices, they have to hire the voice actors all over again and do new CGI sequences... an awful lot for something that Bioware would (hopefully) give out for free.
.

For a company that is backed by an even larger company with resources that are virtually unlimited, development difficulties are irrelevent.  Bioware is obligated to correct the mistakes they made.  The whole reason being that video games are a medium of artisticness that involve the fans.  You can't cut fans out of the equations and expect not to f*ck up eventually.

"Virtually unlimited" is a dangerous phrase.  Bioware is rich, definitely, but as a company, it also has a lot of expenses, including many different projects already vying for said "virtually unlimited" resources.  And plenty of stockholder who, while rich enough in their own right, would dislike paying for something they're not going to get returns on.

Mind you, in this particular context I think they owe it to their fans, I'm just saying it's risky, and not a prospect any gaming company would rush into.  I don't think there have been many games whose ending's were re-written after release (perhaps Portal, but that was just to tie it into the sequel). 

[ReXspec]

nategator wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Who knows why they don't want to change it? I don't. You don't. No one here does.

All that matters is that they don't want to, and its their right as creators of the property to not do so. If you don't like it... don't buy their **** anymore, and find something you DO like.

Problem solved.

Claiming the "artistic vision" argument is broken for several reasons.  You can't cut fans out of the development phases.  Doing so not only leads to collossal screw-ups, but also loses fans, and therefore, profits.

Bioware is in damage control right now because they are desperately trying to maintain customer loyalty and, therefore, long-term profit.

Of course you cut fans out of development phases.  Otherwise you spoil them.  You may run focus groups or occasionally leak a detail, but that has limited utility in guessing fan reaction.  You have to keep the broad strokes of any creative endeavor away from the fans or you won't be able to sell them the finished product.

I'm not talking about mid-development phases.  I'm talking about pre-development phases (concept phases) and post-release phases.  To give an example, this is how bugs and gameplay issues are stamped out.  Not listening to fans after overwhelming feedback that the ending to a game was awful while the rest was arguably good then throwing us a ******-poor PR statement that claims "artistic vision", shows sneering condesencion to fans that put time and money into a series.

[ahandsomeshark]

Shaoken wrote...

Reign762 wrote...

nhcre8tv1 wrote...

It sets a bad precident for other things if this were to happen again. People would be all like "WELL MASS EFFECT DID IT Y U NO U GUYS" and it gives a message out that all writers and studios can be pushed around, look at how we destroyed the Fallout 3 argument, when in reality it was the devs who changed it because THEY didn't like it, not because of the fan outcry, but that doesn't matter here, does it? No matter how you think of this, that WILL happen, and all writers would lose credibility.

Huh ... I guess Sherlock Holmes lost credibility then.

*SIGH* The story where Holmes died has never been changed, not one bit. Doyle just made another book that EXPANDED on the ending of the previous one to CLARIFY how Sherlock Holmes survived his fight with Morarity and why he didn't tell Watson.

Making a sequal /= changing an ending post-release.

huh this isn't true. Well its true that the short story wasn't changed but Doyle's intention was to kill of Holmes for good. He retconned it lady because of fan outcry, clarifying wasn't his intention. That's pretty much a fact, he stated himself multiple times his intention was to kill Holmes off to focus on other writing.

[ReXspec]

Afalstein wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Afalstein wrote...

There are a couple arguments against Bioware giving out a different ending. The first is logistical--depending on the complexity of the ending you want (different endings? That reflect your different decisions?), such an ending could require a lot of coding, even alterations to earlier segments of the game. And if you want voices, they have to hire the voice actors all over again and do new CGI sequences... an awful lot for something that Bioware would (hopefully) give out for free.
.

For a company that is backed by an even larger company with resources that are virtually unlimited, development difficulties are irrelevent.  Bioware is obligated to correct the mistakes they made.  The whole reason being that video games are a medium of artisticness that involve the fans.  You can't cut fans out of the equations and expect not to f*ck up eventually.

"Virtually unlimited" is a dangerous phrase.  Bioware is rich, definitely, but as a company, it also has a lot of expenses, including many different projects already vying for said "virtually unlimited" resources.  And plenty of stockholder who, while rich enough in their own right, would dislike paying for something they're not going to get returns on.

Mind you, in this particular context I think they owe it to their fans, I'm just saying it's risky, and not a prospect any gaming company would rush into.  I don't think there have been many games whose ending's were re-written after release (perhaps Portal, but that was just to tie it into the sequel). 

I agree, but I was referring to EA--not Bioware.  As far as resources go, that is.

[iHorizons]

This is why:

[ahandsomeshark]

RavenEchoseven wrote...

BioWare doesn't want to set that precedent for themselves. Regardless of what others have done, if they relent once, they'll be expected to do so again. They are standing by their creation, regardless of fan backlash. Keep in mind that the majority of professional critics are supporting BioWare in this stance.

yeah but proffesional critics don't make up the majority of their purchasing base. The issue is that the game industry is so competitive and used games have taken so much long-term revenue out of the picture that even if only 5-10% of buyers stop pre-ordering that will have MASSIVE ramifications on their future profits. It doesn't matter what critic say no game company can afford to lose any significant portion of their pre-order/early post release segment.

Modifié par ahandsomeshark, 08 mai 2012 - 02:04 .

[Afalstein]

@RexSpec

Oh.  Well, same points apply, but glad we agree.

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Shaoken wrote...

Reign762 wrote...

nhcre8tv1 wrote...

It sets a bad precident for other things if this were to happen again. People would be all like "WELL MASS EFFECT DID IT Y U NO U GUYS" and it gives a message out that all writers and studios can be pushed around, look at how we destroyed the Fallout 3 argument, when in reality it was the devs who changed it because THEY didn't like it, not because of the fan outcry, but that doesn't matter here, does it? No matter how you think of this, that WILL happen, and all writers would lose credibility.

Huh ... I guess Sherlock Holmes lost credibility then.

*SIGH* The story where Holmes died has never been changed, not one bit. Doyle just made another book that EXPANDED on the ending of the previous one to CLARIFY how Sherlock Holmes survived his fight with Morarity and why he didn't tell Watson.

Making a sequal /= changing an ending post-release.

huh this isn't true. Well its true that the short story wasn't changed but Doyle's intention was to kill of Holmes for good. He retconned it lady because of fan outcry, clarifying wasn't his intention. That's pretty much a fact, he stated himself multiple times his intention was to kill Holmes off to focus on other writing.

I think the point was that Doyle didn't give the story a new ending, he just provided a new story that completely re-interpreted it.  In this context, it's the difference between Bioware releasing a new ending for the game and, say, a totally new game that re-defines the original ending without changing it.

Which, by the way, how would we feel about that?