144 réponses à ce sujet

[Novate]

I saw an review on Xplay on G4 discussing the extended cut dlc, i really don't think anyone actually understands that this Extended Cut DLC is setting an Precedent that is good not bad.

The Good that it sets up for all Game companies is that you can't ignore the Ending for an trilogy, you can't rush a game out the door to milk your customers and fans without really reviewing the stories and if there is any changes to the mechanics of what you have promised, fans and customers needs to know prior to the actual release instead of having the fans and customers finding it out themselves once they spend the money.

These are all good precedents that is being set by the release of the EC.

What Xplay said was that it might dissuade Game Companies from taking chances, taking risks in their game development.

But what was the chances and risks ME3 took that results in the outcry, NOTHING. Multiplayer was their risk and it was overshadowed by the ending. The ending that was not the result of Risk taken, it was just written poorly that required additional explanation.

Synthesis , control, Destroy is not the results of Developers taking a chance in Artistic Story telling,
Mordin's Story line , Geth and Quarian's Story line , even the Blue rose of Ilum mini story line is what we expected for the ending. Gamers, Fans did not receive that.

How can anyone see ME3 Extended Cut and say that its setting a Bad Precedent, just play the game yourself, and get a huge Question Mark for what the hell just happened. If that was the result of what other Game Developers wanted to do and see it as a huge risk for their artistic Story Telling then I am very happpy that they are taking ME3 as their precedent  and learning from it.  

[Apple Lantern]

Exactly.

The chance BW took was multiplayer, and it was rather successful. Most everything there wasn't necessarily a risk, but either something they forgot or decided to change (I.E. the quest system), but it's not revolutionary. Their one true risk worked pretty well.

If anything, the EC is a good precedent since it makes it known to other game companies what happens when you spurn your fan base.Hopefully we won't be seeing anything like the abomination the original ending was from any other company.

[blooregard]

Colin Moriarty is on Xplay now?

TBH when the "gaming journalists" say "X game is setting a dangerous/bad precedent" feel free to ignore them. The last person who said that compared resistance's ending with ME3's ending and disregarded the existence of pre-existing pay-2-play ending DLCs other games have

[AlexMBrennan]

How can anyone see ME3 Extended Cut and say that its setting a Bad Precedent

You seem to be under the impression that xPlay is on your side. They are not. Media necessarily depends on EA's goodwill for developer interviews, early access, etc so there is a clear conflict of interests.

The "bad precedent" is customer feedback compromising the developers artistic integrity. Thing is, you can have all the artistic integrity you want as long as you're willing to do it as a hobby - otherwise, you may have to compromise if people don't like your ideas.

The Good that it sets up for all Game companies is that you can't ignore the Ending for an trilogy, you can't rush a game out the door to milk your customers

Actually, it proves just that. Bioware rushed the game, charged customers upfront and only finished the game three months later. Fans were unable to see through the transparent PR ploy that is EC, so... why exactly should companies *not* do that again?

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:45 .

[WorldOverlord]

It all depends on your point of view. Of course the companies and those that support them *cough* IGNorant game journalists*cough* are going to see the huge outcry as a bad thing. To them consumers should be nothing more than sheep. While I think some things we fans did in this whole debacle went a little to far, this is really nothing new. Endings have been revised/changed for a while now, its just ME3's problem was not just the ending, it was the blatant lies we've been fed by the developers before and their arrogance after the game's release. I also wouldn't doubt that a good chunk of the people complaining are venting frustration built up over a long time towards EA and their direction for Bioware.

[Shaleist]

If future, stupid twist endings are dissuaded then it's a good thing. You're never being clever when a brand new antagonist hops out in the last 0.01% of your story.

[SpamBot2000]

DLC? You mean the patch?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

What? The EC fleshed out the ending, and that's bad?

[Fuzzfro]

DLC especially in these circumstances is a good thing, Creating a new DLC to compromise on want the fans want and also making it free is a great step for gaming, it showed that if the fans campaigned hard enough the developers would listen, although the endings still aren't great they are better and the EC was mostly a success. Success from this type of fan reaction has also been seen in the past (fallout 3 - Broken steel) and made the game a lot better and boosted Bethesda's reputation.

Hopefully this will make it so in the future more developers will listen to the fans.

[Vox Draco]

The only good thing this whole controversy sparked is truly that other game-devs might pay more attention to their own franchises and their fans. Bioware did not fall flat on their noses because they took risks with this silly ending, but because the ending clearly violates everything prior to the Starchild and also doesn't keep up with the promises made by the previous games...not to mention the mood the advertisments put us fans in, like Retake Earth etc...never was reality and promise further apart than after the ending of ME3, EC or not...

Devs can tell their own story and should do so, and of course a whole trilogy is hard to finish with so many different choices to make. But that is no excuse for Bioware. Mass Effect was very early said to be a trilogy and choices and their results were meant to be the core of the game, but the ending now is like a satire on this concept, with three choices slapped onto the story for no understandable reasons. And the story since ME1 feels less and less as if it was really growing naturally, but more like "constructed"...

I really, truly hope devs in the game-industry learn from this and take their own franchises and the feelings of their customers and their expectations more serious. You still have the right to go your own ways and try to surprise your fans, but it should be pleasant surprises, not nihilistic and depressing ones...

[Kel Riever]

You know what is good about the DLC?

It shows you there isn't anything you can do about a crap ending if you patch it with more detail and still have a crap ending. The lesson to be learned is you can't, "Patch stupid."

Modifié par Kel Riever, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:50 .

[richard_rider]

Shaleist wrote...

If future, stupid twist endings are dissuaded then it's a good thing. You're never being clever when a brand new antagonist hops out in the last 0.01% of your story.

Amen, getting tired of twist plots, and endings, sometimes a straightforward story is all that's needed.

[garrusfan1]

yeah since there was you know BROKEN STEEL that fixed fallout 3 ending which wasn't nearly as bad as me3 ending so they are just complaining to complain since there just journalsists

[ScotGaymer]

The opinion that IGNorant and G-Paid-4-Tv has on this issue is indictive of a problem that has been gaining traction in the gaming industry of late.

And that problem is the perception that Video Game's absolutely MUST be considered a Great Art along the lines of picasso's paintings, tolkien's writings, and da vinci's inventions in order to be considered adult and successful.
If Gaming isn't a great snobbish artistic endeavour then doesn't that mean it's just for children after all?

It's positively ridiculous and completely wrong.

Game's don't have to be Art to be enjoyable, or worthy, or successful. They can be fantastic just being games. And there is not a thing childish about enjoying them for what they are.

That isn't to say games can't be Art. I am just saying they don't have to be.

Unfortunately that isn't how most people in the industry want to view it; and it's creating a really insidious and damaging form of elitism that is being used by the industry to try and undermine consumer rights so that they can do, and say, and act as they please without consequence.

IMO, someone needs to put a stop to it.

[Those Protheans]

I still don't understand the risk part for their argument.
What risk? how will this change risk?

[inappropriate comments removed]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 17 juillet 2012 - 11:08 .

[Kel Riever]

Those Protheans wrote...

I still don't understand the risk part for their argument.
What risk? how will this change risk?

[inappropriate comments removed]

This was stated even more directly than I could have.  Well done.

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 17 juillet 2012 - 11:08 .

[Omega Torsk]

Novate wrote...

What Xplay said was that it might dissuade Game Companies from taking chances, taking risks in their game development.

In my humble opinion, X-Play is full of it. It (like IGN) is overshadowed by a blatant conflict-of-interest.

But anyway, they're wrong. This won't dissuade game companies from taking chances. If they payed attention to the main criticisms at all, it will dissuade game companies from taking the wrong kinds of chances.

[Steel Dancer]

If there's one thing I've learned from this entire debacle it's not to really give the remotest damn what "pro" review sites say about a game anymore.

New standard policy is now to wait and see what the fan/purchaser reviews come out like then, after taking a small pinch of salt, make up my own mind.

[Tasker]

Disregarding the fact that plenty of other games have changed their endings due to fan feedback...

Can I just point out that the film industry practically relys on it. 

How many films have been changed ( for better or worse ) from their initial cut thanks to test screenings?

Not to mention - how many film endings have been changed due to 'Directors Cuts'?


So considering we get far more involved and absorbed into computer games than we usually do with movies. To say that changing things with DLC is a bad precedent is just retarded.

Modifié par Orkboy, 09 juillet 2012 - 09:47 .

[Han Shot First]

The person claiming this is a bad precedent utterly fails as a journalist. Ignoring for a moment the discussion on whether or not the repurcussions of the EC are good or bad, it isn't even a precedent.

Bioware isn't the first company to alter the endings of one of its games with DLC. In fact  Bethesda did that relatively recently with Fallout 3, after fans criticized an ending where the main character was forced to sacrifice himself (via entering a radioactive room) when the main character potentially had a follower who was immune to radiation.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 09 juillet 2012 - 09:53 .

[frostajulie]

Those Protheans wrote...

I still don't understand the risk part for their argument.
What risk? how will this change risk?

[inappropriate comments removed]

I love you<3

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 17 juillet 2012 - 11:09 .

[Niniva]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

The opinion that IGNorant and G-Paid-4-Tv has on this issue is indictive of a problem that has been gaining traction in the gaming industry of late.

And that problem is the perception that Video Game's absolutely MUST be considered a Great Art along the lines of picasso's paintings, tolkien's writings, and da vinci's inventions in order to be considered adult and successful.
If Gaming isn't a great snobbish artistic endeavour then doesn't that mean it's just for children after all?

It's positively ridiculous and completely wrong.

Game's don't have to be Art to be enjoyable, or worthy, or successful. They can be fantastic just being games. And there is not a thing childish about enjoying them for what they are.

That isn't to say games can't be Art. I am just saying they don't have to be.

Unfortunately that isn't how most people in the industry want to view it; and it's creating a really insidious and damaging form of elitism that is being used by the industry to try and undermine consumer rights so that they can do, and say, and act as they please without consequence.

IMO, someone needs to put a stop to it.

Exceptionally well put. My thoughts exactly.

[Precursor2552]

Well I suppose the precedent that making a half-assed, phoned in, terrible game isn't acceptable is a bad precedent to certain people...

[sth128]

[spam post removed]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 17 juillet 2012 - 11:09 .

[Versus Omnibus]

X-Play is just being paranoid that the EC will somehow ruin creativity in video games (which is bullsh!t).