226 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

chemiclord wrote...All I have to say in regards to your reasons is if Bioware's statements so far have insulted you... I don't know how you go through the day and not be incensed to the point of rage by lunchtime.No one was pissed on. THAT'S what you don't want to get. That's what you REFUSE to understand. You WANT to be pissed on, so you're calling the rain ******.

good for you, we will see who is right

[Renmiri1]

Hey chemiclord >>>>>>>>> Bioware

At least he showed some interest

[chemiclord]

Interest in what?

Debunking logical fallacy and demonstrating fatal flaws in the premise of an argument? Sure.

You are holding Bioware to a completely different standard than you are holding Blizzard to, then trying to show off Blizzard as an example of what you want from a company. It does not follow.

You remain, to this point, saying, "Hey apple! Be like this orange! Hey! I said be like this orange! GAH! YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!"

[Xamufam]

Bioware failed in writing 101. Golden rules of writing:

1. It must have an introduction, main body and a conclusion (or beginning, middle, and end) whether it is a letter to a friend or a brief or a story.

2. The conclusion must NEVER contain new information, ie something that has not been presented earlier in the document.

ME 3 broke both of those rules. No ending and lots of new information during what should have been the conclusion. The EC finally provided the ending, but it still failed.

Modifié par Troxa, 10 juillet 2012 - 12:45 .

[Dean_the_Young]

This thread is amazing entertainment, and I can give all credit to the OP's hilarious refusal to cite alleged offenses besides two twitter tweets, or make anything approaching compelling reasons why the few things she does cite are in the least insulting as opposed to disagreements. Hell, in one cited 'bad' tweet characters were wasted marking it as a purely personal opinion!

Amazing source of laughter. Thanks, guys and girls.

[chemiclord]

Troxa wrote...



Bioware failed in writing 101. Golden rules of writing:

1. It must have an introduction, main body and a conclusion (or beginning, middle, and end) whether it is a letter to a friend or a brief or a story.

2. The conclusion must NEVER contain new information, ie something that has not been presented earlier in the document.

ME 3 broke both of those rules. No ending and lots of new information during what should have been the conclusion. The EC finally provided the ending, but it still failed.

Meh, I tend to frown upon the idea of set "rules" for writing.

One of the best bits of writing advice I have ever heard was, "What separates a good writer from a great writer is that a great writer knows when best to BREAK the rules."

That said, if you ARE going to "break the rules", you better damn well pull it off, for much the reason the "rules" are there in the first place... because they've become a near universally accepted narrative method.  Bioware did not do it well in the slightest, and on that we will have very little disagreement.

[Dean_the_Young]

Troxa wrote...

Bioware failed in writing 101. Golden rules of writing:

1. It must have an introduction, main body and a conclusion (or beginning, middle, and end) whether it is a letter to a friend or a brief or a story.

They did have this.

2. The conclusion must NEVER contain new information, ie something that has not been presented earlier in the document.

That's not a common rule at all. In fact, you can very easily find works that don't: Tolkein, Star Wars, or even the earlier ME games.

[Sajuro]

Renmiri1 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Space Ghost was in Me1, ME2 or ME3 before the ending ? Where ?

He was in ME3, published and released.

You want Bioware to retroactively retcon and remove him entirely from an already published work.  The closest WoW analogy would be to not just replace Garrosh, but retcon Garrosh completely from the game's lore and make it as if the character and the events surrounding that character never happened.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANY company that would cater to you on that score, Blizzard included (and that's from a company that pretty much cares less than jack **** about their lore).  Your double standard continues to show.

Nice strawman you have there.

I have said in the thread title and pretty much all my posts in this thread that I am ok with not getting what I want. I just want to be treated as an adult who is buying a product that was advertised as "X" and what I got when I opened the package was "Y". I resent being told I'm too dumb to understand "Y", or told "we did Y and that's it, deal with it".

You were promised an end to Shepard's story, you got the end to Shepard's story, the only thing that was 'false' was the one comment that it wouldn't be an ABC choice, though it was far less binary than the final choices in the last two ME games, which had very little if any difference other than the color.

[Mystiq6]

This is definitely going to sound like I'm kissing Blizzard's or BioWare's ass hard.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, I would love to see Blizzard and BioWare work on a game together. We'll call it BlizzoWare or BioZard. I don't know any game company that has game play as consistently good as Blizzard and the only games that I think come close to the story of Mass Effect are Alan Wake and Heavy Rain. That said, it took BioWare 3 games to do what I'm sure Blizzard could do in 1 as far as the game play is concerned. And we all know how good Blizzard is with story. (Starcraft 2 was decent, I thought.)

I always closely watch how Blizzard develops their games, from the beta to after release and I'm always very impressed with how their game designers interact with the fans. So many people complain about how the designers know nothing. Greg Street (WoW) and Jay Wilson (D3) are both very smart people and the amount of fan interaction between the Community Managers and the developers themselves definitely gives you the sense that the company cares about the game. The amount of insight Greg and Jay show when they talk about their games is staggering.

Blizzard has a ton of communication with its fans, something I wish BioWare would learn from because it gives fans the sense that someone out there cares about what's happening. BioWare may do a lot of listening but there's not a lot of communication. The only official word BioWare ever gave was the original Extended Cut press release, which did little to assuage anyone's fears, and then the company went completely silent.

I realize changing a story (BioWare) is a lot more difficult and personal than changing game mechanics (Blizzard) but BioWare definitely broke ground in story telling in video games. I love Mass Effect to death (except maybe the combat in ME1 after playing ME3) and it'd be great if they could break more ground in how to communicate with their fans about the topic.

All I would like to see is someone from the Mass Effect team to come here and talk with us about the ending like Blizzard does with their Community Managers. I realize the ending is done with now but I don't like hearing quotes like "if you knew what was coming you'd keep your saved games forever" and then complete silence. There's nothing worse than being alone in the dark.

All the talk about Mass Effect 3 being rushed probably would never have come up but people feel burnt because there are so many contradicting quotes. The biggest is that at the end of ME3, the game certainly threw out plot lines from ME1 and 2 for a deus ex machina (almost literally) and it was said that ME3 was a great place for new people to start. Of course people are going to think things were abandoned on purpose to simplify the story and make it more accessible, not to mention the plot holes.

Diablo 3's end game may be in a weird place but I'm sure as hell Blizzard is going to come up with something. I loved Mass Effect 1 and 2, very much liked Dragon Age 1 and had a lot of fun back in the day with Baldur's Gate 2 but I was never very hopeful that BioWare was going to change my opinion of the ME3 ending. I do have a weird feeling I'm going to enjoy the DLC, though.

[Sajuro]

Troxa wrote...

Bioware failed in writing 101. Golden rules of writing:

1. It must have an introduction, main body and a conclusion (or beginning, middle, and end) whether it is a letter to a friend or a brief or a story.

2. The conclusion must NEVER contain new information, ie something that has not been presented earlier in the document.

ME 3 broke both of those rules. No ending and lots of new information during what should have been the conclusion. The EC finally provided the ending, but it still failed.

Of the Series? Beginning: ME1, introduces the Reapers as a threat. Middle: ME2, introduces us to more concepts and more of the galaxy, sets up the conflict for the conclusion. End: ME3, the reaper war happening, follows Shepard's efforts to beat the reapers and he ultimately ends their threat or refuses to use the crucible and they are ended in the next cycle.

Of ME3? Beginning: the earth prologue which sets up the story conflict, the Mars mission which introduces you to Cerberus as an enemy type, and the citadel where you speak to the council and the they start you on your mission to unify the galaxy. The middle is divided up into the arcs where you travel around the galaxy rubbing backs and brokering peace to ultimately unite the races and build the crucible. The end starts with the Cerberus Base, storming it to find the AI and what the catalyst is, neutralizing Cerberus as a threat in bookmarking it with the Mars mission, before returning to earth to find a way onto the citadel and using the Crucible to end the reaper threat.

As for the second rule, who da fuq wrote that?

[Xamufam]

Sajuro wrote...

Troxa wrote...

Bioware failed in writing 101. Golden rules of writing:

1. It must have an introduction, main body and a conclusion (or beginning, middle, and end) whether it is a letter to a friend or a brief or a story.

2. The conclusion must NEVER contain new information, ie something that has not been presented earlier in the document.

ME 3 broke both of those rules. No ending and lots of new information during what should have been the conclusion. The EC finally provided the ending, but it still failed.

Of the Series? Beginning: ME1, introduces the Reapers as a threat. Middle: ME2, introduces us to more concepts and more of the galaxy, sets up the conflict for the conclusion. End: ME3, the reaper war happening, follows Shepard's efforts to beat the reapers and he ultimately ends their threat or refuses to use the crucible and they are ended in the next cycle.

Of ME3? Beginning: the earth prologue which sets up the story conflict, the Mars mission which introduces you to Cerberus as an enemy type, and the citadel where you speak to the council and the they start you on your mission to unify the galaxy. The middle is divided up into the arcs where you travel around the galaxy rubbing backs and brokering peace to ultimately unite the races and build the crucible. The end starts with the Cerberus Base, storming it to find the AI and what the catalyst is, neutralizing Cerberus as a threat in bookmarking it with the Mars mission, before returning to earth to find a way onto the citadel and using the Crucible to end the reaper threat.

As for the second rule, who da fuq wrote that?

about synthesis. How does the crusible work, how could it change the catalyst when shep was the first organic to
meet it. Why wasn't synthesis mentioned erlier.
It's a common rule in writing schools teaches it

Modifié par Troxa, 10 juillet 2012 - 01:43 .

[Sajuro]

Troxa wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Troxa wrote...

Bioware failed in writing 101. Golden rules of writing:

1. It must have an introduction, main body and a conclusion (or beginning, middle, and end) whether it is a letter to a friend or a brief or a story.

2. The conclusion must NEVER contain new information, ie something that has not been presented earlier in the document.

ME 3 broke both of those rules. No ending and lots of new information during what should have been the conclusion. The EC finally provided the ending, but it still failed.

Of the Series? Beginning: ME1, introduces the Reapers as a threat. Middle: ME2, introduces us to more concepts and more of the galaxy, sets up the conflict for the conclusion. End: ME3, the reaper war happening, follows Shepard's efforts to beat the reapers and he ultimately ends their threat or refuses to use the crucible and they are ended in the next cycle.

Of ME3? Beginning: the earth prologue which sets up the story conflict, the Mars mission which introduces you to Cerberus as an enemy type, and the citadel where you speak to the council and the they start you on your mission to unify the galaxy. The middle is divided up into the arcs where you travel around the galaxy rubbing backs and brokering peace to ultimately unite the races and build the crucible. The end starts with the Cerberus Base, storming it to find the AI and what the catalyst is, neutralizing Cerberus as a threat in bookmarking it with the Mars mission, before returning to earth to find a way onto the citadel and using the Crucible to end the reaper threat.

As for the second rule, who da fuq wrote that?

about syntetics vs organics. allways felt like reapers vs everyone
It's a common rule in writing schools teaches it

There were undertones of it throughout mass effect 1 and 2, the AI on the citadel saying it wanted to join the geth, Jacob's attitude towards Legion, the who Quarian V Geth conflict and even before the conclusion of ME3, Javik talking about the Metacron war.

[Dean_the_Young]

Are those writing schools ignorant about the mystery genre, per chance? Or many forms of fantasy, sci fi, and other great works?


End-game revelations are pretty commonplace across many genres of fiction. In many they're a staple, either by revealing other sides of a story for new context (such as a mystery novel), or in post-climax resolution (where learning something after the fact shapes the characters views and emotions).

[Mystiq6]

Sajuro wrote...

Troxa wrote...

Bioware failed in writing 101. Golden rules of writing:

1. It must have an introduction, main body and a conclusion (or beginning, middle, and end) whether it is a letter to a friend or a brief or a story.

2. The conclusion must NEVER contain new information, ie something that has not been presented earlier in the document.

ME 3 broke both of those rules. No ending and lots of new information during what should have been the conclusion. The EC finally provided the ending, but it still failed.

Of the Series? Beginning: ME1, introduces the Reapers as a threat. Middle: ME2, introduces us to more concepts and more of the galaxy, sets up the conflict for the conclusion. End: ME3, the reaper war happening, follows Shepard's efforts to beat the reapers and he ultimately ends their threat or refuses to use the crucible and they are ended in the next cycle.

Of ME3? Beginning: the earth prologue which sets up the story conflict, the Mars mission which introduces you to Cerberus as an enemy type, and the citadel where you speak to the council and the they start you on your mission to unify the galaxy. The middle is divided up into the arcs where you travel around the galaxy rubbing backs and brokering peace to ultimately unite the races and build the crucible. The end starts with the Cerberus Base, storming it to find the AI and what the catalyst is, neutralizing Cerberus as a threat in bookmarking it with the Mars mission, before returning to earth to find a way onto the citadel and using the Crucible to end the reaper threat.

As for the second rule, who da fuq wrote that?

The second rule is because you want to look back on a story and see it coming. Otherwise it looks lazy. Anyone can write a story, create an immense, unbeatable antagonist and then have the good guy beat the bad guy by telling him his ways were bad, and he suddenly relents..

Mass Effect as a whole followed the first rule, but you can argue it didn't follow the second.

[Mystiq6]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Are those writing schools ignorant about the mystery genre, per chance? Or many forms of fantasy, sci fi, and other great works?


End-game revelations are pretty commonplace across many genres of fiction. In many they're a staple, either by revealing other sides of a story for new context (such as a mystery novel), or in post-climax resolution (where learning something after the fact shapes the characters views and emotions).

Yeah, it's ok when it makes sense. Scooby-doo (I know) is pretty classic in that it follows the genre conventions to a T. They always explain everything and when you see the episode again you can see how everything fit into place.

[Sajuro]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Are those writing schools ignorant about the mystery genre, per chance? Or many forms of fantasy, sci fi, and other great works?


End-game revelations are pretty commonplace across many genres of fiction. In many they're a staple, either by revealing other sides of a story for new context (such as a mystery novel), or in post-climax resolution (where learning something after the fact shapes the characters views and emotions).

I think they mean you have to have something leading up to the revelation, like with Star Wars when Obi Wan says "There is another" in episode five or in the village, because you know all M Night Shamalama movies are complete crap. (meant to spell it wrong by the way).

[Renmiri1]

I don't think I need to analyse the bad writing, there is a thread here where a lit professor has already done that. And who the hell thinks Star Wars is good writing ? George Lucas is the subject of laughter everywhere with his cheesy dialog. A 14 year old could write better!

@Mystiq6 - you summarized it well. Blizzard has a great game developer team and they do know how to make an excellent game and keep customers happy. I wish Bioware would learn from them.

[Sajuro]

Renmiri1 wrote...

I don't think I need to analyse the bad writing, there is a thread here where a lit professor has already done that. And who the hell thinks Star Wars is good writing ? George Lucas is the subject of laughter everywhere with his cheesy dialog. A 14 year old could write better!

@Mystiq6 - you summarized it well. Blizzard has a great game developer team and they do know how to make an excellent game and keep customers happy. I wish Bioware would learn from them.

Yes, maybe Bioware could make it so you had to be constantly online to play the single player in your games.

[Mystiq6]

Sajuro wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

I don't think I need to analyse the bad writing, there is a thread here where a lit professor has already done that. And who the hell thinks Star Wars is good writing ? George Lucas is the subject of laughter everywhere with his cheesy dialog. A 14 year old could write better!

@Mystiq6 - you summarized it well. Blizzard has a great game developer team and they do know how to make an excellent game and keep customers happy. I wish Bioware would learn from them.

Yes, maybe Bioware could make it so you had to be constantly online to play the single player in your games.

I don't say I agree with every single decision Blizzard has made (it's probably in the ballpark from 80-95%, and I played WoW for 6 years...) but you can't deny Blizzard knows how to communicate with their fans.

Besides, I would bet that a large chunk of the people complaining on the forums that they've lost their hardcore character to lag would probably be playing online anyway. Blizzard probably could have gotten more out of the ridiculously long beta test if they'd just opened up more of the game. At some point I remember them admitting most people played for about 10-15 hours and then never again, and then they sent out more invites. It's not like the Diablo 3 story was any great shakes (despite what they're admitting, haha).

Don't get me wrong: this is one decision I don't agree with and I don't like their justifications but holding Blizzard up to that one decision is like saying BioWare sucks because you don't like the ending to Mass Effect 3. Blizzard's in a unique position because it's a lot easier to iterate on game play design after a game is released than it is to iterate on story after the game is released. BioWare gets one shot. Blizzard can work on a game for 10 years, and they have. People are a lot more willing to accept changes to game play than they are to accept retcons.

Modifié par Mystiq6, 10 juillet 2012 - 05:08 .

[Sajuro]

Mystiq6 wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

I don't think I need to analyse the bad writing, there is a thread here where a lit professor has already done that. And who the hell thinks Star Wars is good writing ? George Lucas is the subject of laughter everywhere with his cheesy dialog. A 14 year old could write better!

@Mystiq6 - you summarized it well. Blizzard has a great game developer team and they do know how to make an excellent game and keep customers happy. I wish Bioware would learn from them.

Yes, maybe Bioware could make it so you had to be constantly online to play the single player in your games.

I don't say I agree with every single decision Blizzard has made (it's probably in the ballpark from 80-95%, and I played WoW for 6 years...) but you can't deny Blizzard knows how to communicate with their fans.

Besides, I would bet that a large chunk of the people complaining on the forums that they've lost their hardcore character to lag would probably be playing online anyway. Blizzard probably could have gotten more out of the ridiculously long beta test if they'd just opened up more of the game. At some point I remember them admitting most people played for about 10-15 hours and then never again, and then they sent out more invites. It's not like the Diablo 3 story was any great shakes (despite what they're admitting, haha).

Don't get me wrong: this is one decision I don't agree with and I don't like their justifications but holding Blizzard up to that one decision is like saying BioWare sucks because you don't like the ending to Mass Effect 3. Blizzard's in a unique position because it's a lot easier to iterate on game play design after a game is released than it is to iterate on story after the game is released. BioWare gets one shot. Blizzard can work on a game for 10 years, and they have.

I'm still holding out hope for Jade Empire 2, I would die happy then

[Grogimus]

Renmiri1 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Again, just to be clear, I was a Retaker with a sig and everything. I was not satisfied with my product, and made my feelings clear on the matter. The EC has placated me, though. I fail to see what is wrong in feeling this way.

Nothing wrong. I just wish they had made the effort to make most of us feel as happy as you are

By 'most of us' you mean you.  You've made it perfectly clear you're not satisfied.  And nothing short of retconning the game to your specific ideals will change that.  I get that.  You have, however, shown not a shred of evidence that you were disrespected, talked down to, insulted, etc. 

Okay, we get it.  You won't change your mind.  You were right the whole time.

Modifié par Grogimus, 10 juillet 2012 - 05:21 .

[Renmiri1]

Grogimus wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Again, just to be clear, I was a Retaker with a sig and everything. I was not satisfied with my product, and made my feelings clear on the matter. The EC has placated me, though. I fail to see what is wrong in feeling this way.

Nothing wrong. I just wish they had made the effort to make most of us feel as happy as you are

By 'most of us' you mean you.  You've made it perfectly clear you're not satisfied.  And nothing short of retconning the game to your specific ideals will change that.  I get that.  You have, however, shown not a shred of evidence that you were disrespected, talked down to, insulted, etc. 

Okay, we get it.  You won't change your mind.  You were right the whole time.

Hmmm.. the title of the thread, my original post and pretty much every post after that I say I am ok with not getting all I want.

As for me being right or not.. Time and game sales will tell. I just wanted to show an example of a good respected game company, wildly sucessful that listens to their customers. So their customers don't feel bad when they don't get what they want.

[Karimloo]

Remember Westwood? Yeah.. Westwood.

[Renmiri1]

Karimloo wrote...

Remember Westwood? Yeah.. Westwood.

I am unfamiliar with this sorcery

[Sanunes]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Hmmm.. the title of the thread, my original post and pretty much every post after that I say I am ok with not getting all I want.

As for me being right or not.. Time and game sales will tell. I just wanted to show an example of a good respected game company, wildly sucessful that listens to their customers. So their customers don't feel bad when they don't get what they want.

I really don't see the Blizzard you are trying to hold up on a pedastal, I purchased Diablo 3 and regret that purchase a lot more then Mass Effect 3.  The always online feature that so many people had issue with before the game was release was forced down our throats and now that I can't always be guarenteed an internet connection the game is worthless at times, at least with Mass Effect 3 I can put Origin into offline mode and play on campus.

Both BioWare and Blizzard are making games for a profit and I see many similarities between the decisions they are making and I really can't fault them for those decisions, but these decisions will upset players and make it seem they are being ignored and possibly mistreated, but that is business nothing more.