6432 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

@Conniving_Eagle, some interesting ideas. And ways to use assets.

[Shade of Wolf]

I agree with a lot about what you said, but some of it contradicts itself. You commend BW for their boldness and originality, but then discourage political/religious statments? I think these should be in games more; games should be respected the same as any other art form. Dragon Age makes as much a religious statement as a picture an artist would do condemning the flaws of organized religion.

[Conniving_Eagle]

It's a shame Bioware didn't follow in the footsteps of FDR and create a "brain trust". EA aside, their game might have been a lot better if they had taken some time to brainstorm and experiment with concepts. Or maybe they don't know anything about FDR. For some reason, that 51st state up north doesn't take the United States' history very seriously.

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 05 septembre 2012 - 08:31 .

[Ozida]

Shade of Wolf wrote...

I agree with a lot about what you said, but some of it contradicts itself. You commend BW for their boldness and originality, but then discourage political/religious statments? I think these should be in games more; games should be respected the same as any other art form. Dragon Age makes as much a religious statement as a picture an artist would do condemning the flaws of organized religion.

I am sorry, but I sincerely disagree. I see games being a piece of entertainment and would rather avoid it being called "art". "Masterpiece", "genius" and so one is fine, but not "art". BioWare's reaction just proved that "art" can be used as a shield against poor executed product, and I am afraid that should all games follow the same way, no fair criticism will be left. How can you criticize art when it so subjective to artist's vision?

There is also a difference in buying art and buying entertainment media. When you buy a painting or sculpture, you know exactly what you will get. You see color, shape and message of the final product. When you buy a newly released game, you are left in a darkness of speculations of what awaits you inside the plastic box. You gamble with your money expecting a good piece of entertainment in some specific genre (shooter, RPG, quest and so on). To call it art is to escape the responsibility to deliver main elements of gaming product. You don't like our graphics? It's art! You don't like the plot? Your problem, it's art. You have issues with confusing navigation? Well, it's artistic revolution in technology.

It's fine to produce high class memorable games (like Fallout or Silent Hill),  but would you really compare it to a good book with a moral or well done painting?

Modifié par Ozida, 05 septembre 2012 - 08:42 .

[3DandBeyond]

Shade of Wolf wrote...

I agree with a lot about what you said, but some of it contradicts itself. You commend BW for their boldness and originality, but then discourage political/religious statments? I think these should be in games more; games should be respected the same as any other art form. Dragon Age makes as much a religious statement as a picture an artist would do condemning the flaws of organized religion.

I didn't condemn them for making political/religious statements nor did I want to discourage that at all.  I rejected the way that they seemed to twist them if they were indeed meant that way.  I respect utilizing some issues in ways where choices exist that allow you to reject what does not fit your view in a lot of the cases.  I rejected the way it's presented because it only presents a dim and demented view of all.  It becomes clear that in large part religion and politics are both disliked equally and the ending seems to bear that out.  The endings touch on both in the most futile and dark ways I've ever seen and I do find fault with having that be the way to end a game.  A game.

I think you misunderstand me.  For instance, as I see it the endings can be taken many ways but none of those ways make them something I can accept.  Synthesis could be a commentary on who has the right to invade your body without your permission.  I see it as just that-you may not.  This does speak to current politics as well as even religious ideas, but I don't have any way to reject that with some other decent choice.  I can pick control, but that is a killer of autonomy and people determining their own future-it's like what people call the "nanny state".  Reapers create and repair tech and are the police force of a police state, overseen by an unfeeling and non-communicative non-person.  It is the way many people view some governments.  But I have no way to reject that and find something that speaks to the character that some wish to adhere to . 

These two are closed off to me-the idea of some person wanting to invade others' bodies without consent and the external controller dictating the future.  Destruction of the body and the mind.  Then there's destroy.  I can't feel good about doing that.  It hurts my heart.  It's like someone saying if I can't decide between the other 2, then I'll just destroy it all and start over again.  This again is something that happens all over the place-governments, legislators destroy things they don't want to understand or they do so because they can't decide what's right.  The problem is, real people get caught in the middle and they lose too.  This destroys the heart.

Then, clearly I should reject it all right?  Yes, at last.  Nothing these people in charge want to do is the right thing at all.  But this is suicide.  I have to choose or everything's over-anarchy.  I must choose the lesser of 3 evils between 3 equally evil things.  I can't do that.

This is my problem with this use of things that seem to be stand ins for religious and political statements.  It's why for me it becomes the case of no one being right, because these are extremes that exist.  Now, that is just one interpretation of them, but it in no way goes against my primary interpretation.  I see them as split versions of what war criminals do where the only real out is suicide.  I can't be happy about this.

[AnsinJung]

Ozida wrote...

Shade of Wolf wrote...

I agree with a lot about what you said, but some of it contradicts itself. You commend BW for their boldness and originality, but then discourage political/religious statments? I think these should be in games more; games should be respected the same as any other art form. Dragon Age makes as much a religious statement as a picture an artist would do condemning the flaws of organized religion.

I am sorry, but I sincerely disagree. I see games being a piece of entertainment and would rather avoid it being called "art". "Masterpiece", "genius" and so one is fine, but not "art". BioWare's reaction just proved that "art" can be used as a shield against poor executed product, and I am afraid that should all games follow the same way, no fair criticism will be left. How can you criticize art when it so subjective to artist's vision?

There is also a difference in buying art and buying entertainment media. When you buy a painting or sculpture, you know exactly what you will get. You see color, shape and message of the final product. When you buy a newly released game, you are left in a darkness of speculations of what awaits you inside the plastic box. You gamble with your money expecting a good piece of entertainment in some specific genre (shooter, RPG, quest and so on). To call it art is to escape the responsibility to deliver main elements of gaming product. You don't like our graphics? It's art! You don't like the plot? Your problem, it's art. You have issues with confusing navigation? Well, it's artistic revolution in technology.

It's fine to produce high class memorable games (like Fallout or Silent Hill),  but would you really compare it to a good book with a moral or well done painting?

The wording or labeling doesn't really matter to me.  Bioware played the artistic integrity card and was ridiculed for it.  Artistic integrity would not have resulted in the ending disaster.

[N7 Lisbeth]

Shade of Wolf wrote...

I agree with a lot about what you said, but some of it contradicts itself. You commend BW for their boldness and originality, but then discourage political/religious statments? I think these should be in games more; games should be respected the same as any other art form. Dragon Age makes as much a religious statement as a picture an artist would do condemning the flaws of organized religion.

Why are you so hung up on religion? Are you playing that card because you're extroverted religious, not religious, or just hoping to spark some sort of argument?

Regardless of the examples used, he pointed out something and it was valid. Focusing on the examples and hoping to find some sort of rebuttal there is ultimately worthless. Address the concepts, not the examples.

[Ozida]

AnsinJung wrote...

The wording or labeling doesn't really matter to me.  Bioware played the artistic integrity card and was ridiculed for it.  Artistic integrity would not have resulted in the ending disaster.

What I've tried to say with my post, that it is not just a wording itself, but rather the concept of how people treat computer games. I personally see a danger in developers start claiming it "art" (or any other related form of wording), because that can be misused as poor excuse (just as your "artistic integrity card" example). It is still at the same level (if no lower) than movies and comics - just for our fun, not for future generations.

And that brings me to the point I have already raised several times: for BioWare to claim that they are so proud of their art that they will not change a single piece of it (as they did right before EC) is a very strange tactict for a business who sells computer games. I mean, think of Harry Potter, for example. He supposed to be killed at the end and that caused a huge wave of unpleasant fans. For a writer, I am sure, it was not an easy decision for Rowling to change her original ideas, I am sure she considered such endings unique and non-Hollywood like. But she was a wise women to realise that it will kill franchise and less people will buy toys, watch the movies and collect her books. If she could change it for her fans, what harm could it make for BW to give some optional "cupcakes" for those who ask for it?

[Warrior Craess]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ozida wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...
It might have been a problem for you but as givenmy example it is not a problem for me. I am sure I am not the only one who see's it that way either. Some people buy DLC because they just like to shoot things and enjoy the combat and a new place to visit, some buy it because wanted to find out more lore and backstory. You personally wanted changes to the ending? But that is personal to you, the DLC was not pointless however because as said many people bought for many reasons and not everyone bought assuming would change the ending especially given they said would not outside of dialogue and such.

Exactly! And we are back to the original request of this topic: to have a separate paid DLC, because some people just like to invest in a story and want to see something additional to existing options. So could we have our victorious DLC now, please?

Yes, I think it is singulary unselfish of those of us that want more to not suggest that those that find the endings to be sufficient (many who have even also gotten rid of their games) wouldn't have to give up anything.  The problem with the quoted post is that that shooting stuff and enjoying combat will ruin ME in the long run.  That wasn't what drew people to it, nor is it a sustainable model.  ME had diverse fans that loved the stories and the characters.  I have fun shooting stuff, but that is not why I played this game, nor is it the case for a huge segment of ME fans.  There are enough games for that already. 

Lore and backstory is meaningless if you've played a meh ending, and if it does nothing for the ending.  So you get cool new guns-what for?  To not win the game again by shooting them?  Great.  ME was not about cool looking green eyes and all that superficial stuff like looking cool while shooting my gun.  It was a character driven story.  The rest is tangential to that.

It's up to them if they want to go toward a CoD kind of game, but it will ruin them.  What they have is unique, what that is is mediocrity.  Lead or follow.

How on earth would it ruin it? If people bought it for that to them is is not ruined to get more of what bought for. It might ruin it for you personally but it does not ruin it for all. In fact CoD games make more money then RPGs so I do not get where you think it will ruin them. Your disdain for that genre and people who play it by applying the term mediocrity to what they might enjoy does you no credit. 

As a FPS ME3 isn't on par with CoD, or MW. There are plenty of shooter games, most of which do not make what CoD/MW do. 

[Warrior Craess]

saracen16 wrote...

The entire Mass Effect trilogy is anything BUT brainless CoD or Battlefield: it involves making some of the toughest decisions ever made in the history of role-playing games. What you're calling for is exactly that: reducing it to a brainless level. Without the ending that BioWare proposed, there would be no debate, and it would become entirely forgettable.

That the trilogy's ending is thought-provoking is testament to its strength, not its weakness. Imagine how it would be if there was an easy way out. Imagine how boring that would be.

ME 1 was anything but brainless CoD style play. ME 2 started sliding in that direction, but was much truer to ME1. ME3 can be played in exactly CoD style. All you gotta do is disallow any decisions, and it's just space opra CoD. 

As a FPS, bioware isn't up to pare with the big names, and will be regulated to a smaller niche. 

[obZen DF]

It's still not clear to me how someone or some people could think that ending Shepard's story with a breath-scene was a good way/acceptable way. So, we spend 100 hours adventuring with our own Shepard, to end it with a scene that implies either 2 things: He has his last breath, or he's alive. Way to end my story! If that breath-scene was at the end of ME2, it would've been a pretty good cliffhanger. Then you know for sure Shepard is alive.
But not when you end a trilogy, and being the very last scene of said trilogy!

What bothers me as well is that Bioware doesn't communicate with us. We don't know if Bioware takes our ideas, or this thread, into consideration. What happened to feedback? Between the all-time haters there are alot of people giving great consctructive critisism, like the OP from this thread for example.

[3DandBeyond]

Warrior Craess wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The entire Mass Effect trilogy is anything BUT brainless CoD or Battlefield: it involves making some of the toughest decisions ever made in the history of role-playing games. What you're calling for is exactly that: reducing it to a brainless level. Without the ending that BioWare proposed, there would be no debate, and it would become entirely forgettable.

That the trilogy's ending is thought-provoking is testament to its strength, not its weakness. Imagine how it would be if there was an easy way out. Imagine how boring that would be.

ME 1 was anything but brainless CoD style play. ME 2 started sliding in that direction, but was much truer to ME1. ME3 can be played in exactly CoD style. All you gotta do is disallow any decisions, and it's just space opra CoD. 

As a FPS, bioware isn't up to pare with the big names, and will be regulated to a smaller niche. 

Yes and the trilogy's ending was not thought-provoking and a testament to its strength.  It's just not constructive to say, "I don't like the endings" and then not explain why.  So, in order to say what I don't like, I have to put it all down into words and have to think about specifically what I don't like.  I would love boring because it would mean I could focus on a game I currently love, rather than one I only used to.  It would be fun for me to go back and create multiple personas that can do things in vastly different ways, if only that led to some different outcomes.  But, alas these ending are not something I enjoy seeing.  They just plain make me feel bad and sad that this is considered good.  And some that think discussing what I see as different war crimes is a good thing might want to know the game was not called "Let's All Be Despots".  It was also not a game about which way you could ultimately screw the galaxy.  It was a game and it was about killing the foes that had been turning people into goo.

[Atakuma]

Warrior Craess wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The entire Mass Effect trilogy is anything BUT brainless CoD or Battlefield: it involves making some of the toughest decisions ever made in the history of role-playing games. What you're calling for is exactly that: reducing it to a brainless level. Without the ending that BioWare proposed, there would be no debate, and it would become entirely forgettable.

That the trilogy's ending is thought-provoking is testament to its strength, not its weakness. Imagine how it would be if there was an easy way out. Imagine how boring that would be.

ME 1 was anything but brainless CoD style play. ME 2 started sliding in that direction, but was much truer to ME1. ME3 can be played in exactly CoD style. All you gotta do is disallow any decisions, and it's just space opra CoD. 

As a FPS, bioware isn't up to pare with the big names, and will be regulated to a smaller niche. 

I doubt you've ever so much as watched a video of a call of duty game. ME3 is nothing like COD and to even suggest that is completely asinine.

[Peranor]

Atakuma wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The entire Mass Effect trilogy is anything BUT brainless CoD or Battlefield: it involves making some of the toughest decisions ever made in the history of role-playing games. What you're calling for is exactly that: reducing it to a brainless level. Without the ending that BioWare proposed, there would be no debate, and it would become entirely forgettable.

That the trilogy's ending is thought-provoking is testament to its strength, not its weakness. Imagine how it would be if there was an easy way out. Imagine how boring that would be.

ME 1 was anything but brainless CoD style play. ME 2 started sliding in that direction, but was much truer to ME1. ME3 can be played in exactly CoD style. All you gotta do is disallow any decisions, and it's just space opra CoD. 

As a FPS, bioware isn't up to pare with the big names, and will be regulated to a smaller niche. 

I doubt you've ever so much as watched a video of a call of duty game. ME3 is nothing like COD and to even suggest that is completely asinine.

You're absolutely right. ME3 is nothing like COD. CoD is better.

[3DandBeyond]

Atakuma wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The entire Mass Effect trilogy is anything BUT brainless CoD or Battlefield: it involves making some of the toughest decisions ever made in the history of role-playing games. What you're calling for is exactly that: reducing it to a brainless level. Without the ending that BioWare proposed, there would be no debate, and it would become entirely forgettable.

That the trilogy's ending is thought-provoking is testament to its strength, not its weakness. Imagine how it would be if there was an easy way out. Imagine how boring that would be.

ME 1 was anything but brainless CoD style play. ME 2 started sliding in that direction, but was much truer to ME1. ME3 can be played in exactly CoD style. All you gotta do is disallow any decisions, and it's just space opra CoD. 

As a FPS, bioware isn't up to pare with the big names, and will be regulated to a smaller niche. 

I doubt you've ever so much as watched a video of a call of duty game. ME3 is nothing like COD and to even suggest that is completely asinine.

The point is what people are saying is that we don't want it to go in that direction.  Have you played it with "no decisions"?  Try that and get back to me.  I like FPSs, but I know that's what I'm getting.  I like RPGs too.  But when RPGs become merely linear games with guns, they begin to be FPSs that are not as slick as a true FPS. 

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The entire Mass Effect trilogy is anything BUT brainless CoD or Battlefield: it involves making some of the toughest decisions ever made in the history of role-playing games. What you're calling for is exactly that: reducing it to a brainless level. Without the ending that BioWare proposed, there would be no debate, and it would become entirely forgettable.

That the trilogy's ending is thought-provoking is testament to its strength, not its weakness. Imagine how it would be if there was an easy way out. Imagine how boring that would be.

ME 1 was anything but brainless CoD style play. ME 2 started sliding in that direction, but was much truer to ME1. ME3 can be played in exactly CoD style. All you gotta do is disallow any decisions, and it's just space opra CoD. 

As a FPS, bioware isn't up to pare with the big names, and will be regulated to a smaller niche. 

I doubt you've ever so much as watched a video of a call of duty game. ME3 is nothing like COD and to even suggest that is completely asinine.

The point is what people are saying is that we don't want it to go in that direction.  Have you played it with "no decisions"?  Try that and get back to me.  I like FPSs, but I know that's what I'm getting.  I like RPGs too.  But when RPGs become merely linear games with guns, they begin to be FPSs that are not as slick as a true FPS. 

you mean TPSs

[Seival]

anorling wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

The entire Mass Effect trilogy is anything BUT brainless CoD or Battlefield: it involves making some of the toughest decisions ever made in the history of role-playing games. What you're calling for is exactly that: reducing it to a brainless level. Without the ending that BioWare proposed, there would be no debate, and it would become entirely forgettable.

That the trilogy's ending is thought-provoking is testament to its strength, not its weakness. Imagine how it would be if there was an easy way out. Imagine how boring that would be.

ME 1 was anything but brainless CoD style play. ME 2 started sliding in that direction, but was much truer to ME1. ME3 can be played in exactly CoD style. All you gotta do is disallow any decisions, and it's just space opra CoD. 

As a FPS, bioware isn't up to pare with the big names, and will be regulated to a smaller niche. 

I doubt you've ever so much as watched a video of a call of duty game. ME3 is nothing like COD and to even suggest that is completely asinine.

You're absolutely right. ME3 is nothing like COD. CoD is better.

Everyone in BSN should understand two major things:

(1) There are many people, who find the entire ME Trilogy (including the endings) good or even perfect.
(2) BioWare will never change anything no matter how long your "last troll attempt" will continue.

Deal with it and accept the endings as they are. If you don't want to - so be it. Just leave. It's as simple as that.

[3DandBeyond]

obZen DF wrote...

It's still not clear to me how someone or some people could think that ending Shepard's story with a breath-scene was a good way/acceptable way. So, we spend 100 hours adventuring with our own Shepard, to end it with a scene that implies either 2 things: He has his last breath, or he's alive. Way to end my story! If that breath-scene was at the end of ME2, it would've been a pretty good cliffhanger. Then you know for sure Shepard is alive.
But not when you end a trilogy, and being the very last scene of said trilogy!

What bothers me as well is that Bioware doesn't communicate with us. We don't know if Bioware takes our ideas, or this thread, into consideration. What happened to feedback? Between the all-time haters there are alot of people giving great consctructive critisism, like the OP from this thread for example.

Thanks.  I personally don't think that's the way you leave a hero-in visual interactive media especially.  I can head canon it all I want, but I was playing a video game, emphasis on video (as in I get to see it) and game (as in fun).  I can no more understand people that think it's just cool to become reaper god nor to force tech internally on people (when in game this was not something anyone sane suggested) and I feel forced into accepting the murder of people that always believed my Shepard about the reapers-people that would best be able to refute the kid as anything but logical.

It's a game and the fun aspect is really non-existent at the end.  And it is also one with the player's avatar being treated like a sack of manure-left in a heap, to gasp like a fish out of water.  Great fish story, BW.  Please, just one way to bring Shep home and consider other real after effects that mean this is not about bunnies and rainbows but something more authentic.

[AresKeith]

Seival wrote...

Everyone in BSN should understand two major things:

(1) There are many people, who find the entire ME Trilogy (including the endings) good or even perfect.
(2) BioWare will never change anything no matter how long your "last troll attempt" will continue.

Deal with it and accept the endings as they are. If you don't want to - so be it. Just leave. It's as simple as that.

1, no one knows the real number of people who are happy with the way ME3 ended

2. This isn't a troll thread, no matter how many times you wanna call it because we aren't ok with the endings like you

[Seival]

AresKeith wrote...

Seival wrote...

Everyone in BSN should understand two major things:

(1) There are many people, who find the entire ME Trilogy (including the endings) good or even perfect.
(2) BioWare will never change anything no matter how long your "last troll attempt" will continue.

Deal with it and accept the endings as they are. If you don't want to - so be it. Just leave. It's as simple as that.

1, no one knows the real number of people who are happy with the way ME3 ended

2. This isn't a troll thread, no matter how many times you wanna call it because we aren't ok with the endings like you

(1) Noone knows the real number of haters either. I prefer to think they are just vocal minority.
(2) This is troll thread. BioWare officially stated they will never change the endings. But you are keep whining.

[Iakus]

Seival wrote...

(1) Noone knows the real number of haters either. I prefer to think they are just vocal minority.
(2) This is troll thread. BioWare officially stated they will never change the endings. But you are keep whining.

Believe me, your preferences are abundantly clear:

"I'm happy, so STFU"

Modifié par iakus, 05 septembre 2012 - 10:44 .

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The point is what people are saying is that we don't want it to go in that direction.  Have you played it with "no decisions"?  Try that and get back to me.  I like FPSs, but I know that's what I'm getting.  I like RPGs too.  But when RPGs become merely linear games with guns, they begin to be FPSs that are not as slick as a true FPS. 

Form what I've seen and heard the endings are more appropriate fro an action-mode "no decisions" run.  Shepard gets hit with tragedy after tragedy until the Catalyst finally finishes him/her off.

Those of us who actually put some thought into our choices get stuck wit hthe same ending though.

Modifié par iakus, 05 septembre 2012 - 10:46 .

[Warrior Craess]

iakus wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The point is what people are saying is that we don't want it to go in that direction.  Have you played it with "no decisions"?  Try that and get back to me.  I like FPSs, but I know that's what I'm getting.  I like RPGs too.  But when RPGs become merely linear games with guns, they begin to be FPSs that are not as slick as a true FPS. 

Form what I've seen and heard the endings are more appropriate fro an action-mode "no decisions" run.  Shepard gets hit with tragedy after tragedy until the Catalyst finally finishes him/her off.

Those of us who actually put some thought into our choices get stuck wit hthe same ending though.

The game is much better if played no decisions, and with out any relation to the two previous games.  Then it's not a matter of lousy choices, it just a matter of playing a story that the writers wanted to tell. I'd bet that the "canon" ending will be the no decision play through. 

[3DandBeyond]

AresKeith wrote...

Seival wrote...

Everyone in BSN should understand two major things:

(1) There are many people, who find the entire ME Trilogy (including the endings) good or even perfect.
(2) BioWare will never change anything no matter how long your "last troll attempt" will continue.

Deal with it and accept the endings as they are. If you don't want to - so be it. Just leave. It's as simple as that.

1, no one knows the real number of people who are happy with the way ME3 ended

2. This isn't a troll thread, no matter how many times you wanna call it because we aren't ok with the endings like you

Funny thing is this "Deal with it" post is from the person that got mad at everyone that didn't agree that the original ending's Joker runs away and the Normandy crash scene was sometime in the future and it was a crash test of the mass relays to see if they worked.

And I see that's really mature-a troll post.  You didn't read it Seival did you?  I know you didn't so you are commenting on what you think it says which is really what you just accused me of.

And "just leave" well that's really a great idea.  Many have already.  Even people that claim to like the game have left, don't care to buy DLC and so on-how many great games do you think a company can afford to make if people take the advice of people like you Seival and just leave? 

Would you take my advice and leave if I told you to?  Would you take my advice and not post some of the "incredible" posts you have made?  No, and I didn't agree with any of them, but I never once told you to stop posting, never insulted you, nor anything else like that.  So, thanks.