226 réponses à ce sujet

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Bioware do listen. That's why we got the EC.

[Sanunes]

Honestly comparing World of Warcraft to Mass Effect doesn't work, I think comparing Diablo 3 to Mass Effect 3 is a better comparison. Both are being compared as their "true vision" has been corrupted by a large company that bought the studio. I think in the future Blizzard will get just as many complaints as BioWare does around here because of changes they have been making to the game.

There has been some complaints recently towards Blizzard because of the repair cost boost with the high level gear and the people on the Diablo 3 boards were actively complaining and requesting Blizzard change it and as far as I can tell it has fallen on deaf ears, which is exactly the complaints I am hearing from the complaints around here.

I really don't think EA is going to be going anywhere, I don't think Mass Effect 3 has impacted the stock prices of EA, but I do think its The Old Republic and that because stockholders believe that MMOs are printing presses for money, but I just can't see any new MMO ever being as popular as World of Warcraft, even "project Titan".

[FlamboyantRoy]

This is how it's done....

http://desmond.image....png&res=medium

[Master Shiori]

Renmiri1 wrote...


Yup. They tell me his story line is perfect as is and any disagreement "trivializes it".

I never got that kind of closed mind from Blizzard.

Ok, let's try this:

Do you have a movie or book where you happen to like a particular character that dies by the end, even though you didn't want him/her to?

Do you demand the writer/filmaker explain why that character had to die or even start a public debate about the merrits of him/her surviving as opposed to dying? 

No you don't, because once a book is published or a movie released to the general public, that's that. You're free to love it or hate it, but nobody has any right to demand it be changed.

Why should it be any different with video games?

Renmiri1 wrote...


If Tully was to answer like Blizzard he would post his explanation on "Why Thane has to die" and also list reasons why people DISAGREE with his opinion, or "Why Thane doesn't have to die". Listing pros and cons and debating without ego, without "we don't make mistakes" without "you just have an ax to grind".

The end result could still be Thane dying, but I would have felt respected instead of feeling like I was an heretic in church 

And you don't think writers debated the merrits ot Thane surviving as opposed to dying? Seriously?

Just because they didn't start a public debate about it and listed the pros and cons doesn't mean they haven't considered it.

Tully nicely explained to you why they believed curing Thane wouldn't have worked from the story pov. The fact that his reasoning isn't to your liking doesn't make it insulting.

Modifié par Master Shiori, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:23 .

[shepdog77]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Bioware do listen. That's why we got the EC.

BUT IT WASN'T EXACTLY WHAT I ASKED FOR!!!!!!

*end sarcasm*

[Fusiontron]

There is no reason to get upset over things we can't control. So there's no reason to get upset over the ending. Sure Mass Effect was my entertainment for the first half of this year and I feel the ending tarnished the series. but you know what there are other games out there to play. Since ME3 I've played through both modern Fallouts and started up the Dragon Age and Halo series.

[Sajuro]

Renmiri1 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So being treated with respect meant more to you than getting a new ending?

No but makes the current ending more bearable 

Some of the bad tweets

Renmiri1 wrote...

"Cheapen"
https://twitter.com/...736362599546880

worse 
https://twitter.com/...536281015402497

The only bad thing about the first one is that he should have used "Deus Ex Machina" instead of Macguffin.The second one, I assume he meant Thane as BF, so yeah not 'disrespectful'

[Sajuro]

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

This is how it's done....

http://desmond.image....png&res=medium

What's the context?

[CronoDragoon]

crimzontearz wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...I don't know you man, but to me when someone says "we are sorry you thought the endings were sub par" and "We understand you needed more clarity and closure" that is a rather insulting statementThe interview with Jessica was just as insulting and so was the implementation of “refusal"

How are either of those statements insulting? We DID need more clarity and closure.I haven't read the Jessica interview, but Refusal is something many fans explicitly ASKED FOR. "I'd rather take a moral stand and everyone gets wiped out than pick these endings." Well, here it is. You can preserve Shepard's free will to refuse the endings, but it doesn't follow that you should be able to defeat the Reapers without the Crucible.

I work for a very large company, Parented by a multinational that dwarves EA many times over. A statement like that is putting the blame, implicitly, on the consumer who did not understand the product. Notice how the verbiage is not "we are sorry our endings were lacking" but "we are sorry YOU FOUND THEM lacking" ...we understood the endings perfectly, and what they meant, yet they were poorly implemented and thematically revolting and left many with no emotional payoff. Clarity and Closure were not the issue, not the way they intended it.


As per refusal, as always bioware listened to what they wanted to hear. Most people as proven by surveys wanted a refusal + conventional victory OR a low ems flat out loss. Those who said I would rather lose meant it as an hyperbole 90% of the time and they too ALSO asked for a different option.....what they got was only a flat out loss implemented also by shooting the star child which is what many players did out of frustration. Like saying "still don't like the starbrat? there, you lose, try again and love the art.

1. Hypocritical. You are imposing upon them the same "agree with us or you are bad" ultimatum that you accuse them of impying in their statement. There is a difference between expecting BioWare to do something about their endings because it is good business to appease fans, and expecting them to suddenly agree that their endings are bad because you demand that they do. The former is a reasonable expectation. The second is fascist.

2. No, the philosophy behind Refusal is that you stand by your ideals NO MATTER WHAT. If this is the message that you want in your ending, then it doesn't matter that they lose because you preserved your freedom to choose the way you live or die. Bypassing the Crucible AND winning is even more thematically stupid than the Catalyst. What people should have been - and should still be - arguing for, is a Destroy ending where the geth aren't sacrificed. That would solve the issue while still preserving the thematic importance of the Crucible.

[crimzontearz]

CronoDragoon wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...I don't know you man, but to me when someone says "we are sorry you thought the endings were sub par" and "We understand you needed more clarity and closure" that is a rather insulting statementThe interview with Jessica was just as insulting and so was the implementation of “refusal"

How are either of those statements insulting? We DID need more clarity and closure.I haven't read the Jessica interview, but Refusal is something many fans explicitly ASKED FOR. "I'd rather take a moral stand and everyone gets wiped out than pick these endings." Well, here it is. You can preserve Shepard's free will to refuse the endings, but it doesn't follow that you should be able to defeat the Reapers without the Crucible.

I work for a very large company, Parented by a multinational that dwarves EA many times over. A statement like that is putting the blame, implicitly, on the consumer who did not understand the product. Notice how the verbiage is not "we are sorry our endings were lacking" but "we are sorry YOU FOUND THEM lacking" ...we understood the endings perfectly, and what they meant, yet they were poorly implemented and thematically revolting and left many with no emotional payoff. Clarity and Closure were not the issue, not the way they intended it.


As per refusal, as always bioware listened to what they wanted to hear. Most people as proven by surveys wanted a refusal + conventional victory OR a low ems flat out loss. Those who said I would rather lose meant it as an hyperbole 90% of the time and they too ALSO asked for a different option.....what they got was only a flat out loss implemented also by shooting the star child which is what many players did out of frustration. Like saying "still don't like the starbrat? there, you lose, try again and love the art.

1. Hypocritical. You are imposing upon them the same "agree with us or you are bad" ultimatum that you accuse them of impying in their statement. There is a difference between expecting BioWare to do something about their endings because it is good business to appease fans, and expecting them to suddenly agree that their endings are bad because you demand that they do. The former is a reasonable expectation. The second is fascist.

2. No, the philosophy behind Refusal is that you stand by your ideals NO MATTER WHAT. If this is the message that you want in your ending, then it doesn't matter that they lose because you preserved your freedom to choose the way you live or die. Bypassing the Crucible AND winning is even more thematically stupid than the Catalyst. What people should have been - and should still be - arguing for, is a Destroy ending where the geth aren't sacrificed. That would solve the issue while still preserving the thematic importance of the Crucible.

1 that us what a company with good PR and customer service does "we are sorry our product did not meet your expectation" not "we are sorry you found it bad". As I said the endings were understood, the problem is that they were, and are, nonsensical (especially synthesis) and lack real payoff in favor of speculation.


 
2 the next cycle wins conventionally, regardless THAT us what people asked for, go re-read the threads and polls. If they were unwilling to do it then they should not have added the refusal ending especially with that implementation.

[crimzontearz]

And even if all that was not true....the fact that so many took it like a **** you means it was poorly implemented regardless of intentions.....which means bioware failed

[Omega Torsk]

Unfortunately, it was too little too late. Blizzard killed the casual gamer base with the initial change. The payoff simply wasn't worth it, anymore. Too many people left to pursue other things.

And that's why I quit WoW. And, ironically, replaced my interests with Mass Effect.

[CronoDragoon]

crimzontearz wrote...

1 that us what a company with good PR and customer service does "we are sorry our product did not meet your expectation" not "we are sorry you found it bad". As I said the endings were understood, the problem is that they were, and are, nonsensical (especially synthesis) and lack real payoff in favor of speculation.


 
2 the next cycle wins conventionally, regardless THAT us what people asked for, go re-read the threads and polls. If they were unwilling to do it then they should not have added the refusal ending especially with that implementation.

1. Does your company produce art? If so, when reviews are bad, do you force the artist to apologize for its quality? A malfunctioning vacuum cleaner is much different than fans disliking an ending. Also, I can easily construe your "expectation" apology to mean "we are sorry that your expectations were too high for this product." See how ANYTHING can be interpreted negatively?

2. Er, I was under the impression that Mike Gamble said the next cycle uses the Crucible to win?

Just so we're clear, I'm not a "pro-ender." I simply find it ridiculous the degree to which anti-enders look to be offended and insulted. It's everything I hate about political correctness.

[Giggles_Manically]

Bioware listens to one thing and one thing only: What makes them (EA) the most money.

Why remove any inventory, or the cooldown system, or exploration?
People complained about it, and it was not enough like what was popular at the moment.

Why remove most RPing ability in favor of auto-dialogue?
It confuses COD players, and was not enough like other money making games.

Why gut anything the series meant in favor of what we got?
MONEY.

The only reason they gave us the EC is to shut people up so they buy their already on disc DLC.
Not that most people will buy it, but some people buy anything these days with the right brand name.

[crimzontearz]

CronoDragoon wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

1 that us what a company with good PR and customer service does "we are sorry our product did not meet your expectation" not "we are sorry you found it bad". As I said the endings were understood, the problem is that they were, and are, nonsensical (especially synthesis) and lack real payoff in favor of speculation.


 
2 the next cycle wins conventionally, regardless THAT us what people asked for, go re-read the threads and polls. If they were unwilling to do it then they should not have added the refusal ending especially with that implementation.

1. Does your company produce art? If so, when reviews are bad, do you force the artist to apologize for its quality? A malfunctioning vacuum cleaner is much different than fans disliking an ending. Also, I can easily construe your "expectation" apology to mean "we are sorry that your expectations were too high for this product." See how ANYTHING can be interpreted negatively?

2. Er, I was under the impression that Mike Gamble said the next cycle uses the Crucible to win?

Just so we're clear, I'm not a "pro-ender." I simply find it ridiculous the degree to which anti-enders look to be offended and insulted. It's everything I hate about political correctness.

 
Really?


 
ART?


 
OK, not worth continuing at all

[crimzontearz]

Also, grammar, subject-verb-complement. It is rather easy to construct a much less misinterpretable statement

[CronoDragoon]

What makes it not art? That it's a story in a video game as opposed to a movie or book? This discussion will go nowhere except semantic anyway, since you will I assume construct a definition of art that somehow excludes video game stories, whereas mine includes them.

[Torrible]

crimzontearz wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

1 that us what a company with good PR and customer service does "we are sorry our product did not meet your expectation" not "we are sorry you found it bad". As I said the endings were understood, the problem is that they were, and are, nonsensical (especially synthesis) and lack real payoff in favor of speculation.


 
2 the next cycle wins conventionally, regardless THAT us what people asked for, go re-read the threads and polls. If they were unwilling to do it then they should not have added the refusal ending especially with that implementation.

1. Does your company produce art? If so, when reviews are bad, do you force the artist to apologize for its quality? A malfunctioning vacuum cleaner is much different than fans disliking an ending. Also, I can easily construe your "expectation" apology to mean "we are sorry that your expectations were too high for this product." See how ANYTHING can be interpreted negatively?

2. Er, I was under the impression that Mike Gamble said the next cycle uses the Crucible to win?

Just so we're clear, I'm not a "pro-ender." I simply find it ridiculous the degree to which anti-enders look to be offended and insulted. It's everything I hate about political correctness.

 
Really?


 
ART?


 
OK, not worth continuing at all

It's a valid argument. There are a series of objective performance levels that a product like a vacuum cleaner must meet. Art is a lot more subjective. Just because the product does not meet the expectations of a segment of fans doesn't mean the product fails. 

[chemiclord]

It's not art because some fans still don't like it.

That's pretty much the long and short of it.  I, personally, have no problem calling it art.

I also have no problem calling it rather BAD art.

Modifié par chemiclord, 09 juillet 2012 - 07:52 .

[AlexMBrennan]

No it isn't. The entire art debate is a straw man - Bioware makes games to make money; thus they need people to buy their games; thus they need people to like their games; thus they need to listen to customer feedback.

[chemiclord]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

No it isn't. The entire art debate is a straw man - Bioware makes games to make money; thus they need people to buy their games; thus they need people to like their games; thus they need to listen to customer feedback.

Buy their games?  Check.

Like their games?  Check.

Listen to customer feedback?  Check.

Okay, what else do they have to do?  Oh... pander specifically to what you want?  Yeah... that's never gonna happen.  Sorry.

[Renmiri1]

Art is not mass marketed.

Books don't come up with adds saying I can make my own Sheppard.

Bait and switch, false advertising and all that. When I bought the game I wasn't aware my RPG was going to turn into emo genocide by Star Brat.

[CronoDragoon]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

No it isn't. The entire art debate is a straw man - Bioware makes games to make money; thus they need people to buy their games; thus they need people to like their games; thus they need to listen to customer feedback.

It's not a straw man when people blatantly say "it isn't art" and I argue against that.

BioWare did listen to feedback; introducing the Extended Cut!

What I do NOT agree with, is that BioWare should be forced to agree that their endings are bad because we say they are. That is fascist thinking. They can defend their endings while listening to customer feedback and giving us content accordingly....which is exactly what Ray said they would do and which is exactly what happened.

[SpamBot2000]

chemiclord wrote...

It's not art because some fans still don't like it.

That's pretty much the long and short of it.

I wouldn't say so. "Art" implies an artistic intent. I don't believe that was behind the ending. It was more like burning a book is to literature or trashing a studio to painting. Granted, this is not a proven fact. But it sure as hell looks like the most obvious explanation to me.

[Renmiri1]

chemiclord wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

No it isn't. The entire art debate is a straw man - Bioware makes games to make money; thus they need people to buy their games; thus they need people to like their games; thus they need to listen to customer feedback.

Buy their games?  Check.

Like their games?  Check.

Listen to customer feedback?  Check.

Okay, what else do they have to do?  Oh... pander specifically to what you want?  Yeah... that's never gonna happen.  Sorry.

We have already established that "pander specifically to what you want?   " is not necessary. Both Blizzard and Bioware did things I didn't want. But one of them was professional about it. The other ? "So be it".

Listen to customer feedback ? Please.

They aren't listening, they are preaching that what they did is art and you are a simpleton that can't see it. That is not listening, is the opposite of it

Modifié par Renmiri1, 09 juillet 2012 - 07:58 .