144 réponses à ce sujet

[SpamBot2000]

Blueprotoss wrote...

[Crying wolf won't help you either especially when you aren't going after Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, 2K, Ubisoft, THQ, Warner Bros, Tecmo, Sega, Valve, Bethesda, or Square Enix.

"Crying wolf"? Please use correct expression so people don't have to guess what you mean. I take your point as "You should never do anything about a problem unless you're attempting to fix every problem in the world at once." So, as you clearly perceive customer feedback as a problem, I can presume that you are in fact involved in an epic struggle to solve every problem you see anywhere at this precise moment as well, right? 

[Chrysantemum]

Just going to leave this here: penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

Make of it what you will.

(Extra points to the host for sounding like a Salarian)

[MstrJedi Kyle]

It shows that gamers are not willing to accept garbage. That is a bad precedent for companies like Activision and EA where all they care about is profit and not quality. That's why people are saying the EC sets a bad precedent. BioWare didn't have to do the EC, and they didn't have to do it for free, but I'm grateful they did. It shows that EA hasn't totally corrupted them.

Modifié par DarthKilby, 10 juillet 2012 - 10:16 .

[ld1449]

Chrysantemum wrote...

Just going to leave this here: penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

Make of it what you will.

(Extra points to the host for sounding like a Salarian)

I disagree with his statistic on how DLC wont sell down the road.

Regular or meh games won't sell because the game sucked or wasn't critically aclaimed.

But look at Dark Souls. Coming out with DLC a full year after its release and people were practically frothing at the mouth when it was announced.

If the game is good, it'll sell no matter how much time passes.

How many people would pick up DLC tomorrow for Half life if it was announced.

You'd have to beat them back from Valves gates as they shout praise with pepper spray and tear gas.

Modifié par ld1449, 10 juillet 2012 - 11:34 .

[Peranor]

Those Protheans wrote...

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

You make a sh*tty ending and overall an unpolished game, that is the worse dialogue wise out of all the installments.
No closure for the most part.
Was the risk they took "not giving a f**k"?
If that is the risk, then f**k you that risk can you go an die.

Yeah. The only "bad precedent" set here is by the damn sanctimonious self-proclaimed gaming journalists that has the gall to actually defend the crapfest that was the Mass Effect 3 ending.
If you want to ensure a decline in gaming quality, then sure Xplay, go ahead and settle for less. 

I loathe those smug bastards.

Modifié par anorling, 10 juillet 2012 - 11:37 .

[ld1449]

anorling wrote...

Those Protheans wrote...

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

You make a sh*tty ending and overall an unpolished game, that is the worse dialogue wise out of all the installments.
No closure for the most part.
Was the risk they took "not giving a f**k"?
If that is the risk, then f**k you that risk can you go an die.

Yeah. The only "bad precedent" set here is by the damn sanctimonious self-proclaimed gaming journalists that has the gall to actually defend the crapfest that was the Mass Effect 3 ending.
If you want to ensure a decline in gaming quality, then sure Xplay, go ahead and settle for less. 

I loathe those smug bastards.

This is what will continue to hapen until someone in the legal branches takes games just as seriously as any other product out there, and until the ethics board actually looks at journalism in the gaming industry.

As of now they have free reign because no one really gives a rats ass long enough to take a look.

[AsheraII]

The EC DLC was actually a very safe fix for Bioware. Basically: Mass Effect 3 sold several million copies: the money was already made, while at the same time there wasn't too much spent on any commercials or advertising. There were commercials and advertising, but compared to the amount of sales, it was actually very little. Most of the advertising was done by the hyping fans themselves!

So, with all that money earned, and the obvious need for some additional clarification about the ending, they simply COULD make an improvement to it. Not every gamecompany can do that, so yes, other gamecompanies who don't sell millions of copies will always have to keep in mind to place the climax at the end, instead of 10 minutes before the end. They simply can't gamble on fixing it later. No company wants to make that gamble: it's cheaper to make it properly the first time than creating a patch to sort that out after.

If Mass Effect 3 hadn't sold so many copies, then I doubt we'd have seen the EC. Though there might've been a lot less whining as well.

[DeamonSlaz]

Blueprotoss only has one goal: To deliberately poke at people and create turmoil. I would suggest using the 'ignore' feature every human has installed in their head and pretend it does not exist.

From what i understand from BlueProtoss and another player is that we as fans should have never complained. Just played the game, hated it or loved it and moved on.

Well, guess what? Star Wars was just not three books. Star Wars was not just three movies. Star Wars is an entire franchise still going strong and still evolving. And Why? Not because of its various plot holes, sinkers, and very easy to grasp concepts, because its over all ending suited the storyline and was being built up. We all knew the Death Star was bad, the Emperor was bad, and Darth Vader and Luke were going to clash. We were just praying Luke had enough training to finish the job and save the Galaxy.

Well in Mass Effect, we were failed to be given this type of franchise. Instead the endings felt forced and unnatural. Say what you want in defense, the Catalyst never existed until the final moments of the game. He was never hinted at or nothing.It was a shoe-horn ending.

DLC with the Prothean, why in the hell did I have a random black NPC in my party during the final moments before Hammer pushes out? Oh that's right, it was meant to be Javik and Bioware just dropped in a random skin instead of cleaning the scene up. Javik was always meant to be in the game, but he became DLC to plumb us for an extra $10. Well that is shady and annoying, but thankfully we can chose not to buy. However, you just miss out on plotlines and apparently get a different game without Javik.

As a consumer we have a lot of Rights and Expectations given to us by our native Country and its Consumer Laws. In America, a company can not say: Drink our soda, it will give you laser eyes! Because if you drink it and it fails to give laser eyes, we can then sue for failed promises. This is our right as a consumer and I believe the EC has a double edge feeling to it.

Did we just okay EC and DLC that can be fitted into a game after to fix issues? DId we just over all create a landmark saying developers can be lazy? No. It is that simple.

If this was Dragon's Dogma and the ending failed to make me happy, i would have traded it in. ME did a wonderful job of building up a fan base and they kept the hype going. It was Bioware's own fault that players were left extremely disappointed. So, if its a three part series, I'll forever be wary of it. I don't trust Bioware and I see Dragon AGe 3 flopping so hard because they have no idea how to build plotlines or storylines.

[Xandurpein]

I think that the real problem is that it does set a bad precedent for all the Game reviewers who are in the pocket of the major producers. They all look like fools if they give games 10/10 scores and then the developer implicitly acknowledges themselves that it was a rush-job and expands the ending.

[Peranor]

Xandurpein wrote...

I think that the real problem is that it does set a bad precedent for all the Game reviewers who are in the pocket of the major producers. They all look like fools if they give games 10/10 scores and then the developer implicitly acknowledges themselves that it was a rush-job and expands the ending.

That's one theory as well

Modifié par anorling, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:02 .

[Kel Riever]

Game Reviewers make money by advertising, not by writing reviews. So they are basically commercials calling themselves reviewers. Ever read the piece of trash PC gamer is? It is a giant **** magazine for the industry. So, until people actually pay attention and gravitate to media that actually is critical, you can expect more b*llsh*t nonsense from, 'Game Reviewers.'

[Malditor]

ld1449 wrote...

anorling wrote...

Those Protheans wrote...

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

You make a sh*tty ending and overall an unpolished game, that is the worse dialogue wise out of all the installments.
No closure for the most part.
Was the risk they took "not giving a f**k"?
If that is the risk, then f**k you that risk can you go an die.

Yeah. The only "bad precedent" set here is by the damn sanctimonious self-proclaimed gaming journalists that has the gall to actually defend the crapfest that was the Mass Effect 3 ending.
If you want to ensure a decline in gaming quality, then sure Xplay, go ahead and settle for less. 

I loathe those smug bastards.

This is what will continue to hapen until someone in the legal branches takes games just as seriously as any other product out there, and until the ethics board actually looks at journalism in the gaming industry.

As of now they have free reign because no one really gives a rats ass long enough to take a look.

Really? Really.... You want the government to step in and regulate gaming???? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever seen.

[SpamBot2000]

Malditor wrote...

Really? Really.... You want the government to step in and regulate gaming???? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever seen.

Ah, the fear of government. So succesfully planted in the political culture by commercial interests that people are ready to grab pitchforks to fight against their own advantage if coming from a governmental source. Contrary to what you sometimes hear today, the revered Founding Fathers correctly jumped at the opportunity to form a government. Government does not equal Tyranny. Corrupt and unrepresentative government pretty much does. The solution is not to "drown the government in a bathtub", it is to make sure it is free of corruption and understands that it is in place to serve the people. Any power unchecked leads to Tyranny. Why people concerned with liberty are so willing to advance the unchecked power of private interests beholden to none is a mystery to me.

But this isn't even about that. Nobody's suggesting that some agency dictate game content. What they mean is, customers of video game producers deserve the same kind of customer protection that is taken for granted in other markets. Video game buyers are too often treated like rubes who will happily pay any hidden fees to enjoy their defective products. Getting up in arms to fight for the "Artistic Integrity" of Electronic Arts means insisting that this is in fact correct.

[Malditor]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Really? Really.... You want the government to step in and regulate gaming???? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever seen.

Ah, the fear of government. So succesfully planted in the political culture by commercial interests that people are ready to grab pitchforks to fight against their own advantage if coming from a governmental source. Contrary to what you sometimes hear today, the revered Founding Fathers correctly jumped at the opportunity to form a government. Government does not equal Tyranny. Corrupt and unrepresentative government pretty much does. The solution is not to "drown the government in a bathtub", it is to make sure it is free of corruption and understands that it is in place to serve the people. Any power unchecked leads to Tyranny. Why people concerned with liberty are so willing to advance the unchecked power of private interests beholden to none is a mystery to me.

But this isn't even about that. Nobody's suggesting that some agency dictate game content. What they mean is, customers of video game producers deserve the same kind of customer protection that is taken for granted in other markets. Video game buyers are too often treated like rubes who will happily pay any hidden fees to enjoy their defective products. Getting up in arms to fight for the "Artistic Integrity" of Electronic Arts means insisting that this is in fact correct.

I've no fear of the government. I don't think it's necessary for the government to put any manpower into things as trivial as gaming/movies/music whatever regulation. I'd rather they focus on running the country.

[Kel Riever]

Don't fear government or lack of regulation. Fear sh*t endings.

And again, the point of all this railing is that the DLC didn't do anything other than explain badly why the ending was so bad, which makes it still entirely bad.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 10 juillet 2012 - 03:42 .

[SpamBot2000]

Malditor wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Really? Really.... You want the government to step in and regulate gaming???? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever seen.

Ah, the fear of government. So succesfully planted in the political culture by commercial interests that people are ready to grab pitchforks to fight against their own advantage if coming from a governmental source. Contrary to what you sometimes hear today, the revered Founding Fathers correctly jumped at the opportunity to form a government. Government does not equal Tyranny. Corrupt and unrepresentative government pretty much does. The solution is not to "drown the government in a bathtub", it is to make sure it is free of corruption and understands that it is in place to serve the people. Any power unchecked leads to Tyranny. Why people concerned with liberty are so willing to advance the unchecked power of private interests beholden to none is a mystery to me.

But this isn't even about that. Nobody's suggesting that some agency dictate game content. What they mean is, customers of video game producers deserve the same kind of customer protection that is taken for granted in other markets. Video game buyers are too often treated like rubes who will happily pay any hidden fees to enjoy their defective products. Getting up in arms to fight for the "Artistic Integrity" of Electronic Arts means insisting that this is in fact correct.

I've no fear of the government. I don't think it's necessary for the government to put any manpower into things as trivial as gaming/movies/music whatever regulation. I'd rather they focus on running the country.

Oh, ok. I was mistaken then. But surely keeping commerce honest is a vital task of the government? 

[Archereon]

Guys, no matter what, the Extended Cut isn't good news for the industry.

It NEVER learns the right lesson from things like this. In all likelyhood, instead of developers realizing they can't pull crap like cutting out content and making it DLC or ending a story with an idiotic twist, they'll probably think "oh, we better not take risks now, otherwise people will rage. MOAR DLC is BETTER BTW!!!"

[Malditor]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Malditor wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Really? Really.... You want the government to step in and regulate gaming???? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever seen.

Ah, the fear of government. So succesfully planted in the political culture by commercial interests that people are ready to grab pitchforks to fight against their own advantage if coming from a governmental source. Contrary to what you sometimes hear today, the revered Founding Fathers correctly jumped at the opportunity to form a government. Government does not equal Tyranny. Corrupt and unrepresentative government pretty much does. The solution is not to "drown the government in a bathtub", it is to make sure it is free of corruption and understands that it is in place to serve the people. Any power unchecked leads to Tyranny. Why people concerned with liberty are so willing to advance the unchecked power of private interests beholden to none is a mystery to me.

But this isn't even about that. Nobody's suggesting that some agency dictate game content. What they mean is, customers of video game producers deserve the same kind of customer protection that is taken for granted in other markets. Video game buyers are too often treated like rubes who will happily pay any hidden fees to enjoy their defective products. Getting up in arms to fight for the "Artistic Integrity" of Electronic Arts means insisting that this is in fact correct.

I've no fear of the government. I don't think it's necessary for the government to put any manpower into things as trivial as gaming/movies/music whatever regulation. I'd rather they focus on running the country.

Oh, ok. I was mistaken then. But surely keeping commerce honest is a vital task of the government? 

Sure, basic commerce management, like price gouging, bait and switch, lemon law etc. But things like this is what the BBB is for.

[Blueprotoss]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

[Crying wolf won't help you either especially when you aren't going after Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, 2K, Ubisoft, THQ, Warner Bros, Tecmo, Sega, Valve, Bethesda, or Square Enix.

"Crying wolf"? Please use correct expression so people don't have to guess what you mean. I take your point as "You should never do anything about a problem unless you're attempting to fix every problem in the world at once." So, as you clearly perceive customer feedback as a problem, I can presume that you are in fact involved in an epic struggle to solve every problem you see anywhere at this precise moment as well, right? 
on

It seems like yo don't understand the old saying to cry wolf, which it tells you not to lie to get attention.  If you the really want a change in one company then yo'll have to go after the industry as a whole based on those practices.

[Blueprotoss]

DarthKilby wrote...

It shows that gamers are not willing to accept garbage. That is a bad precedent for companies like Activision and EA where all they care about is profit and not quality. That's why people are saying the EC sets a bad precedent. BioWare didn't have to do the EC, and they didn't have to do it for free, but I'm grateful they did. It shows that EA hasn't totally corrupted them.

I hate it when some people cause drama just to be noticed.  Btw a real bad precedent would be creating a new ending not ending it yet you forget to talk about Fallout 3, Asura's Wrath, and Final Fantasy 13-2.

[Blueprotoss]

anorling wrote...

Those Protheans wrote...

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

You make a sh*tty ending and overall an unpolished game, that is the worse dialogue wise out of all the installments.
No closure for the most part.
Was the risk they took "not giving a f**k"?
If that is the risk, then f**k you that risk can you go an die.

Yeah. The only "bad precedent" set here is by the damn sanctimonious self-proclaimed gaming journalists that has the gall to actually defend the crapfest that was the Mass Effect 3 ending.
If you want to ensure a decline in gaming quality, then sure Xplay, go ahead and settle for less. 

I loathe those smug bastards.

All I see is entitlement and ignoranc because the only bad precedent  came from the small group of "fans".

ld1449 wrote...

This is what will continue to hapen until someone in the legal branches takes games just as seriously as any other product out there, and until the ethics board actually looks at journalism in the gaming industry.

As of now they have free reign because no one really gives a rats ass long enough to take a look.

Yet you're actually talking about the "fans " and its ironic that you aren't trying to talk about critics i the movie industry. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 10 juillet 2012 - 05:23 .

[Blueprotoss]

DeamonSlaz wrote...

Blueprotoss only has one goal: To deliberately poke at people and create turmoil. I would suggest using the 'ignore' feature every human has installed in their head and pretend it does not exist.

I see you're not interested in the facts based on your willingness to ingnore them and resort to petty insults when you're wrong 

DeamonSlaz wrote... 

From what i understand from BlueProtoss and another player is that we as fans should have never complained. Just played the game, hated it or loved it and moved on.

 Yet you should be doing that and you can share your dislike through something called constructive criticism.

DeamonSlaz wrote... 

Well, guess what? Star Wars was just not three books. Star Wars was not just three movies. Star Wars is an entire franchise still going strong and still evolving. And Why? Not because of its various plot holes, sinkers, and very easy to grasp concepts, because its over all ending suited the storyline and was being built up. We all knew the Death Star was bad, the Emperor was bad, and Darth Vader and Luke were going to clash. We were just praying Luke had enough training to finish the job and save the Galaxy.

 Star Wars is a bad example especially when the "fans" didn't want more movies, books, or games.

DeamonSlaz wrote...  

Well in Mass Effect, we were failed to be given this type of franchise. Instead the endings felt forced and unnatural. Say what you want in defense, the Catalyst never existed until the final moments of the game. He was never hinted at or nothing.It was a shoe-horn ending.

 Thats a huge lie especially when the Citadel was hinted as the Catalyst in ME1 and the Catalyst plan was shown in the beginning of ME3, which means it isn't a Deus Ex Machina.

DeamonSlaz wrote...   

DLC with the Prothean, why in the hell did I have a random black NPC in my party during the final moments before Hammer pushes out? Oh that's right, it was meant to be Javik and Bioware just dropped in a random skin instead of cleaning the scene up. Javik was always meant to be in the game, but he became DLC to plumb us for an extra $10. Well that is shady and annoying, but thankfully we can chose not to buy. However, you just miss out on plotlines and apparently get a different game without Javik.

I see that you have to be racist for no reason and its pathetic on how you're acting over optional content.

DeamonSlaz wrote...   

As a consumer we have a lot of Rights and Expectations given to us by our native Country and its Consumer Laws. In America, a company can not say: Drink our soda, it will give you laser eyes! Because if you drink it and it fails to give laser eyes, we can then sue for failed promises. This is our right as a consumer and I believe the EC has a double edge feeling to it.

 As a consumer we do have some rights but  we don't have the Developer or Publisher rights.  I'm still not  surprised with this level of ignorance and entitlement.

DeamonSlaz wrote...   

Did we just okay tEC and DLC that can be fitted into a game after to fix issues? DId we just over all create a landmark saying developers can be lazy? No is that simple. 

Demanding a new ending is useless 
especially with your attitude.

DeamonSlaz wrote...   

If this was Dragon's Dogma and the ending failed to make me happy, i would have traded it in. ME did a wonderful job of building up a fan base and they kept the hype going. It was Bioware's own fault that players were left extremely disappointed. So, if its a three part series, I'll forever be wary of it. I don't trust Bioware and I see Dragon AGe 3 flopping so hard because they have no idea how to build plotlines or storylines.

I see you're using a straw-mann here based on how you really don't care about ME based on your views and actions.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 10 juillet 2012 - 05:46 .

[ScotGaymer]

Niniva wrote...

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.

Thank you.

I just can not see any other reason for what is going on. Well except for naked self interest.

[translationninja]

Someone needs to grab a Merriam-Websters or something and look up "entitlement", it's not a bad word you know, throwing it around like it's derogatory or negative just makes people look incredibly foolish.

Of course if a "customer's entitlement" is a strange concept to some, then my offer of many threads to discuss my latest 2 Minute Killer Abs Machine, investments in Russia and helping my uncle in the justice ministry of Nigeria the honorable Dr. Dr. Mabutu Mbabwe to transfer 49 Million Dollar out of the country for a philantropist widow's estate still stand.

Modifié par translationninja, 10 juillet 2012 - 05:38 .