181 réponses à ce sujet

[The RPGenius]

nhcre8tv1 wrote...

The RPGenius wrote...

It would set the dangerous precedent of giving the consumer a product he or she doesn't hate.

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.

Passing right by the laughably moronic idea that giving in on this point would show that writers and studios everywhere can be pushed around easily, as well as the equally laughably moronic idea that writers and studios SHOULDN'T be capable of being held accountable for extreme misteps as any other creator is by the consumer who pays for his/her product...the Fallout 3 ending was changed years ago.  This is the first time that there has been any major case where its precedent has any relevance since then. 

This is basically the same argument that unthinking bigots use to denounce gay marriage when they imply that it will somehow damage/destroy the concept of marriage and its foundation in society.  They claim it will do something terrible, despite the obvious fact that it's been in existence for years now in several places and hasn't caused any of these terrible social cataclysms they predict.    Your speculation is groundless, the situation has already been a reality for some time, and that reality has proven you wrong.

Modifié par The RPGenius, 08 mai 2012 - 02:08 .

[ahandsomeshark]

Afalstein wrote...

@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?

How could they redefine this ending without changing it? What could they possibly do? Especially in the case of synthesis.

[Parabolee77]

Because changing the entire ending would be terrible. Even if you liked the new ending it would always feel fake and cheaply tacked on.

And because they are deeply proud of the ending, because it's kinda brilliant and extremely bold. To be as committed as they are to the Indocrtination ending is admirable as hell. I fully expect the EC to blow minds. That's how much faith and respect I have in Bioware. They have never let me down yet ( loved DA2 despite MINOR flaws ).

[Reign762]

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.

Actually Doyle was surprised at the backlash and had told many people Holmes was meant to die.  It was after the public outcry that he wrote Hound of the Baskervilles to appease people who wanted more Holmes.  Culminating officially when he relented to write The Empty House to change the death sequence to Holmes surviving.

Those were written because of the furor of the public outcry my friend.  Which is directly to what is happening now with Bioware.  For Doyle, Did you realize people cancelled their subscription to Strand?  Sent Hate Mail to Doyle?  Wore Black Armbands in the streets in protest of Holme's dying?  Obituaries of Holmes death was front page news?

I bet you knew all that.

[ReXspec]

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.

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.

...and yet you cite Duke Nukem as an example where fans were virtually silent because they moved on from the series.  The developers of that game were lost in the dream of ten years ago where a sequel would have actually been relevant.  Prime example of a developer turning a blind eye to the fan base (amongst other things).

Bioware did wonderfully with ME1, ME2 and most of ME3 because they listened to fans feedback and ideas about what the game should be.  The disconnect was made about the ending when only a handful of people took it upon themselves to create the crap ending we have today.

Modifié par ReXspec, 08 mai 2012 - 02:12 .

[ahandsomeshark]

I wonder how long indoctrination fans are going to hold on to the belief. 3 months? 6? do you think some of them will still think Bioware is just waiting for the right moment in 2020?

[ahandsomeshark]

Like if the EC comes out and Indoctrination plays no part I'm literally going to just pop some popcorn and read these forums all day. In fact as soon as they announce the date I'm just gonna bloc the whole week off in my calendar.

Modifié par ahandsomeshark, 08 mai 2012 - 02:13 .

[EnvyTB075]

IIT: Implying all IT fans are vehement evangelicals who couldn't accept a rational explanation to the debacle that is the Mass Effect 3 ending.

[Oni Changas]

alec1898 wrote...

It's called admitting failure, It doesn't bode well on stock, just so ya know.

Neither does a legion of pissed of consumers. Next.

[ReXspec]

OniTYME wrote...

alec1898 wrote...

It's called admitting failure, It doesn't bode well on stock, just so ya know.

Neither does a legion of pissed of consumers. Next.

^this

[ahandsomeshark]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

IIT: Implying all IT fans are vehement evangelicals who couldn't accept a rational explanation to the debacle that is the Mass Effect 3 ending.

I don't think all IT fans. Just some of the more vocal ones, those are the ones I assume would be making a ton of posts.

[Varus Praetor]

Admit they made a mistake and are not the golden children of gaming any more? Bioware? Surely you jest.

[Bill Casey]

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.

Watch, it won't work...
There's a real danger that if they try, it will become a...

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FranchiseZombie

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 mai 2012 - 02:27 .

[DOHC46]

ReXspec wrote...

OniTYME wrote...

alec1898 wrote...

It's called admitting failure, It doesn't bode well on stock, just so ya know.

Neither does a legion of pissed of consumers. Next.

^this

^ that!

Varus Praetor wrote...

Admit they made a mistake and are not the golden children of gaming any more? Bioware? Surely you jest.

^and that, too.

Modifié par DOHC46, 08 mai 2012 - 02:28 .

[chemiclord]

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.

I must have missed the part where fans were in the development meetings and constructing the story arcs.

You can't cut fans out of the development because fans aren't part of the development in any way, shape, or form to begin with.  To claim otherwise is pure entitled delusions.

[ReXspec]

Bill Casey 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.

Watch, it won't work...
There's a real danger that if they try, it will become a...

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FranchiseZombie

Assuming the franchise dies entirely though.  To make a comparison of where we are right now as far as determining whether ME is dead or not, the ME franshice just took several high-caliber rifle rounds to the face and chest and Bioware is busy discussing amongst themselves on whether they should actually keep the franchise alive by repairing the ending, or letting it die and keeping to their "aritistic vision"  meanwhile fans are desperately trying to keep the series alive with the limited resources the developer has given them (game mods, fan fiction, etc) and begging the head-medic (Bioware) to get off their asses and save the franchise.

[sammysoso]

Because such a big change so publicly would destroy their credibility as storytellers. It would also damage their reputations with potential investors.

Like it or not, Mass Effect is not the end-all for most gamers and gaming businesses.

[ReXspec]

chemiclord 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.

I must have missed the part where fans were in the development meetings and constructing the story arcs.

You can't cut fans out of the development because fans aren't part of the development in any way, shape, or form to begin with.  To claim otherwise is pure entitled delusions.

To say fans are in Technical Support forums pointing out bugs or mistakes (as an example), or game conventions with Developers and staff who work on the game or work with the people who do, is not sounding "entitled" nor is it "delusional."

Bioware f*cked up and we're pointing it out.  Bioware is therefore obligated to fix it, or lose customer loyalty and therefore profit.

Modifié par ReXspec, 08 mai 2012 - 02:40 .

[DOHC46]

sammysoso wrote...

Because such a big change so publicly would destroy their credibility as storytellers. It would also damage their reputations with potential investors.

Like it or not, Mass Effect is not the end-all for most gamers and gaming businesses.

Can you explain how this works, in detail, please?  How does fixing a damaged product destroy credibility?

[chemiclord]

ReXspec wrote...

To say fans are in Technical Support forums, or game conventions with Developers and staff with the game is not sounding "entitled" nor is it "delusional."

Bioware f*cked up and we're pointing it out.  Bioware is therefore obligated to fix it, or lose customer loyalty and therefore profit.

Bioware is "obligated" to do jack ****.  They can do whatever the flying **** they want.  If they want to change the endings, they can.  If they don't, they don't, and you have less than zero say in those decisions.

You can either choose to accept it, or take your business elsewhere.  THAT is your impact.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Slayer299]

nhcre8tv1 wrote...

The RPGenius wrote...

It would set the dangerous precedent of giving the consumer a product he or she doesn't hate.

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.

The writers have already lost all credibility, there is nothing left for them to lost on that front.

[ReXspec]

chemiclord wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

To say fans are in Technical Support forums, or game conventions with Developers and staff with the game is not sounding "entitled" nor is it "delusional."

Bioware f*cked up and we're pointing it out.  Bioware is therefore obligated to fix it, or lose customer loyalty and therefore profit.

Bioware is "obligated" to do jack ****.  They can do whatever the flying **** they want.  If they want to change the endings, they can.  If they don't, they don't, and you have less than zero say in those decisions.

You can either choose to accept it, or take your business elsewhere.  THAT is your impact.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Then they lose profit.  That is the last thing they want.  Especially if they have embittered customers saying that the game sucks.

There is a damn reason game developers have technical support and feedback apparatus'.  You can't say that consumers have no sway over a games creation or continual development.  To do so is either an expression of tremendous emitterment toward the gaming industry in general, or ignorance as to what actually happens to games in the industry.

[Shaoken]

ReXspec wrote...

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.

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.

...and yet you cite Duke Nukem as an example where fans were virtually silent because they moved on from the series.  The developers of that game were lost in the dream of ten years ago where a sequel would have actually been relevant.  Prime example of a developer turning a blind eye to the fan base (amongst other things).

You and I must have been going to different places, because all throughout that decade I kept running into fans who were still hyped for DNF, fans who lined up for four hours at the E3 where Gearbox announced they were finising the game. Who do you think ended up buying the game when it was finally released?

I didn't see the fanbase being silent with that game.

Bioware did wonderfully with ME1, ME2 and most of ME3 because they listened to fans feedback and ideas about what the game should be.  The disconnect was made about the ending when only a handful of people took it upon themselves to create the crap ending we have today.

And exactly where did you learn that detail? Were you there in the meeting rooms? Or are you basing it off a post that the man it's attributed to has said up and done many times it wasn't by him.

Also, how was ME1's quality in any part related to fan feedback since the series, you know, wasn't launched before that point.

[Slayer299]

chemiclord wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

To say fans are in Technical Support forums, or game conventions with Developers and staff with the game is not sounding "entitled" nor is it "delusional."

Bioware f*cked up and we're pointing it out.  Bioware is therefore obligated to fix it, or lose customer loyalty and therefore profit.

Bioware is "obligated" to do jack ****.  They can do whatever the flying **** they want.  If they want to change the endings, they can.  If they don't, they don't, and you have less than zero say in those decisions.

You can either choose to accept it, or take your business elsewhere.  THAT is your impact.  Nothing more, nothing less.

You're incorrect. Bioware (and every other major corp) is obligated to do something when it affects the bottom line....it's called pissed off share-holders. They (Bioware) can as you say "do whatever the flying **** they want," but we're talking dollars and pennies here and this is serious damage control to stem the flow of cash they are losing from customers (new/old/potential). Share-holders could give a flying leap about 'artistic vision' or 'customer rights', their eyes are on the bottom line, so, when that number isn't meeting goal, than the bottom line is that BW's corp overlords are going to (already have) pressued BW to do *something* to get the fans happy and people back to buying the title/future dlc/future products.

Taking your business elsewhere is an impact and a big one, especially when more than a few people are doing it and that starts actually affecting sales. Nothing scares corp's more than people getting angry and organized and effecting the sales of a product. The first two they couldn't care less about and just ride out the wave, its the last one that gets their attention fast and get your wants met. 

[chemiclord]

ReXspec wrote...

Then they lose profit.  That is the last thing they want.  Especially if they have embittered customers saying that the game sucks.

Apparently not, because they aren't changing the ending.  So either they don't think your opinion is truly the majority (it might be, it might not be, I dunno), or they think their fans are lowly peasants that will crawl back begging for more scraps no matter what.

Either way... you don't get what you want.  So... now what?

There is a damn reason game developers have technical support and feedback apparatus'.  You can't say that consumers have no sway over a games creation or continual development.  To do so is either an expression of tremendous emitterment toward the gaming industry in general, or ignorance as to what actually happens to games in the industry.

Really?  Can't say I've seen too many game companies ask fans, "How would you write this story differently?"  I've seen a lot of fans PROVIDE that answer UNSOLICITED, and promptly ignored.  If you're equating bug reporting to story development... then I don't know what to say to you other than you can't be more wrong.

Slayer299 wrote...

You're incorrect. Bioware (and every other major corp) is obligated to do something when it affects the bottom line....it's called pissed off share-holders. They (Bioware) can as you say "do whatever the flying **** they want," but we're talking dollars and pennies here and this is serious damage control to stem the flow of cash they are losing from customers (new/old/potential). Share-holders could give a flying leap about 'artistic vision' or 'customer rights', their eyes are on the bottom line, so, when that number isn't meeting goal, than the bottom line is that BW's corp overlords are going to (already have) pressued BW to do *something* to get the fans happy and people back to buying the title/future dlc/future products.

Taking your business elsewhere is an impact and a big one, especially when more than a few people are doing it and that starts actually affecting sales. Nothing scares corp's more than people getting angry and organized andeffecting the sales of a product. The first two they couldn't care less about and just ride out the wave, its the last one that gets their attention fast and get your wants met.  

 

Shareholders aren't fans inherently.  Shareholders care even less about fan opinion than developers do.  All shareholders care about are the $$$ coming in.  They've already GOT your money.  They don't care one whit.  They'll care when the NEXT Bioware game hits the shelves and people don't buy it.

And I never said taking your business elsewhere wasn't a big weapon.  It is.  It's the biggest weapon you've got.  Corporations don't even one tenth of one **** about people getting angry and organized.  They ONLY care about the money.

Modifié par chemiclord, 08 mai 2012 - 03:06 .