325 réponses à ce sujet

[wolfsite]

The problem is no matter what Bioware does there are CERTAIN people who immediately look for the worse possible way to spin it or go directly to ignoring and continue to whine like they own the company.

The problem is not listening to the fans it's following through with what the fans want becuase honestly, not even we know what we want.  Every time a question is asked they either get nerd rage without any context or they get so many diverse ideas there is nothing consistant to use meaning some people will be satisfied and others will think that they are not listening or don't care and continue to hate on them.

Honestly with all this going on I'm just glad they are continuing to make games as with many people if they conitnue getting hate and negativity without context or constructive criticism it would be a sign to move on and do other things (like some have already done).

It feels like the fans are saying "you can make games, but we will hate you for it."  Even in threads were people look at the good things someone comes in a spews hate without reasons why and de-rails the thread into bickering among the fans (just look at the now closed character appreciation thread).

Some people either need to grow up, look at the big picture of how a game developer works, or just move on and find something else.


You may know ignore what I said and call me a fanboy for not agreeing with your opinion and having one of my own in 5...4...3..2....

[Morty Smith]

wolfsite wrote...

The problem is no matter what Bioware does there are CERTAIN people who immediately look for the worse possible way to spin it or go directly to ignoring and continue to whine like they own the company.

The problem is not listening to the fans it's following through with what the fans want becuase honestly, not even we know what we want.  Every time a question is asked they either get nerd rage without any context or they get so many diverse ideas there is nothing consistant to use meaning some people will be satisfied and others will think that they are not listening or don't care and continue to hate on them.

Honestly with all this going on I'm just glad they are continuing to make games as with many people if they conitnue getting hate and negativity without context or constructive criticism it would be a sign to move on and do other things (like some have already done).

It feels like the fans are saying "you can make games, but we will hate you for it."  Even in threads were people look at the good things someone comes in a spews hate without reasons why and de-rails the thread into bickering among the fans (just look at the now closed character appreciation thread).

Some people either need to grow up, look at the big picture of how a game developer works, or just move on and find something else.


You may know ignore what I said and call me a fanboy for not agreeing with your opinion and having one of my own in 5...4...3..2....

I just call you a part of the problem you raised in your post yourself. Reflect.

[shodiswe]

Im sure they don't mind thoughts on what customers might want, though there is nothing we can do to prevent another autrossity such as the ME3 ending. It coudl have been a lot better, and I would like the ending of a game ot be it's crowning achivement That's how you end a game on a good note.

As for Sequel or Prequel, don't really care, as long as it's a good story and the game mechanics arn't buggy.

From my point of view ME3 seemed less buggy, though not flawless.
There is that bermudatriangle near joker where I can get stuck for some reason, especialy when interacting with EDI.

personaly I would love to see more escallating consequences of bigger decisions, things that have a global effect in the universe. Like adding major war assets and having them affect the endings. Maybe Synergy effects that makes the story feel more alive and responsive.

I'm pretty sure there was a lot more that the team would have wanted to do in ME3 but it would take too much time, and memory resourses.

[wolfsite]

Kroitz wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

The problem is no matter what Bioware does there are CERTAIN people who immediately look for the worse possible way to spin it or go directly to ignoring and continue to whine like they own the company.

The problem is not listening to the fans it's following through with what the fans want becuase honestly, not even we know what we want.  Every time a question is asked they either get nerd rage without any context or they get so many diverse ideas there is nothing consistant to use meaning some people will be satisfied and others will think that they are not listening or don't care and continue to hate on them.

Honestly with all this going on I'm just glad they are continuing to make games as with many people if they conitnue getting hate and negativity without context or constructive criticism it would be a sign to move on and do other things (like some have already done).

It feels like the fans are saying "you can make games, but we will hate you for it."  Even in threads were people look at the good things someone comes in a spews hate without reasons why and de-rails the thread into bickering among the fans (just look at the now closed character appreciation thread).

Some people either need to grow up, look at the big picture of how a game developer works, or just move on and find something else.


You may know ignore what I said and call me a fanboy for not agreeing with your opinion and having one of my own in 5...4...3..2....

I just call you a part of the problem you raised in your post yourself. Reflect.

Nothing to really reflect on.

I've offered my opinion but never directly attacked anyone.  I've merely suggested that some people need to step back for a moment.

Or you are saying I'm part of the problem by pointing out the problems on the other side of the fence are...... so many ways to interpret that.... but again that is the problem with forum based discussions as it can be really easy to interpret someone motives or actions the wrong way when they are being more subtle or trying to state something without offending as the reader could believe they are trying to be something in reality they are not.

[Cashmoney007]

They should go back to the Dark Energy idea? oh wait........

[tamperous]

They know that a problem exists. The open question is what they identify as the root cause of the problem and if their mitigation will be successful.

Case in point, they identified the wrong problem after DA2 because they didn't want to blame themselves or their proceses.

A small excerpt from a DA2 post-mortem interview found here www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-10-biowares-mike-laidlaw-a-defence-of-dragon-age-ii-interview

EG: The Metacritic score for Dragon Age II (at the time of writing) is 82 per cent. Is that in-line with expectations?

Mike Laidlaw: It's a little bit lower than we were expecting. We knew going in that this may not sit around the same spot as Origins on all platforms (86 for the 360). There's been, I would say, more strongly negative reviews appearing on Metacritic than I expected. I'm a little surprised by the 6/10s and they have a fair amount of weight early on. If the Metacritic isn't where we want it to be, and honestly our goal as a studio is to try and aim more for 90, then our next step will be to, very easily, go through those reviews, go through fan feedback, especially over some time - as opposed to the day-one initial response - and look at that in a measured way and say, what didn't work, what did work, where did we go too far, where did we not go far enough, where was there just an inherent dissonance, and try to refine the experience and try to move forward for any future products.

So they blamed poor initial reviews from professional critics for the failure of of DA2. Their solution was to control the initial reviews of ME3 by bringing the gaming media into line. Remember the prominent use of the "75 Perfect Scores" tagline? It was planned since the failure of DA2.

Jessica Chobot ended up being the patsy for this strategy.

Modifié par tamperous, 25 novembre 2012 - 03:19 .

[thebigbad1013]

Will they make ME4 exactly how fans tell them to? Of course not--and they shouldn't. Will they listen to what the fans are interested in seeing and use some of it for the game? I imagine they will, otherwise they wouldn't be asking.

[Dean_the_Young]

tamperous wrote...


They know that a problem exists. The open question is what they identify as the root cause of the problem and if their mitigation will be successful.

Case in point, they identified the wrong problem after DA2 because they didn't want to blame themselves or their proceses.

A small excerpt from a DA2 post-mortem interview found here www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-10-biowares-mike-laidlaw-a-defence-of-dragon-age-ii-interview

EG: The Metacritic score for Dragon Age II (at the time of writing) is 82 per cent. Is that in-line with expectations?

Mike Laidlaw: It's a little bit lower than we were expecting. We knew going in that this may not sit around the same spot as Origins on all platforms (86 for the 360). There's been, I would say, more strongly negative reviews appearing on Metacritic than I expected. I'm a little surprised by the 6/10s and they have a fair amount of weight early on. If the Metacritic isn't where we want it to be, and honestly our goal as a studio is to try and aim more for 90, then our next step will be to, very easily, go through those reviews, go through fan feedback, especially over some time - as opposed to the day-one initial response - and look at that in a measured way and say, what didn't work, what did work, where did we go too far, where did we not go far enough, where was there just an inherent dissonance, and try to refine the experience and try to move forward for any future products.

So they blamed poor initial reviews from professional critics for the failure of of DA2.

Amazingly, what you quoted in no way supports what you just claimed.

[tamperous]

Dean_the_Young wrote...



Amazingly, what you quoted in no way supports what you just claimed.

Really? Isn't he talking about he  "Metascore" which is out of 100 based on critics reviews. He then does talk about user scores but he's saying that the metascore created the seed from which the user dissonance started in the case of DA2?

Modifié par tamperous, 25 novembre 2012 - 03:27 .

[Dean_the_Young]

tamperous wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...



Amazingly, what you quoted in no way supports what you just claimed.

Really? Isn't he talking about he  "Metascore" which is out of 100 based on critics reviews.

Nowhere in what you quoted supports that distinction.

Not, mind you, that the Metascore itself is anywhere close to an objective measure of anything. There's no common standard across the reviewers, and no qualification needed for any score. The 'critics' themselves are just as qualified as the user scores, which is to say not really: the lowest score on the Metascore comes from GameCritics, which gave DA2 a score of 25 on the basis that the only high of the game was Varric's retelling of storming his brother's house and that everything else was bad.

He then does talk about user scores but he's saying that the metascore created the seed from which the user dissonance started in the case of DA2?

No. He says nothing of the sort. He makes no distinction between the Metascore and the Userscore, and his elaboration focuses solely on the fanfeedback.


How you get from

then our next step will be to, very easily, go through those reviews, go
through fan feedback, especially over some time - as opposed to the
day-one initial response - and look at that in a measured way and say,
what didn't work, what did work, where did we go too far, where did we
not go far enough, where was there just an inherent dissonance, and try
to refine the experience and try to move forward for any future products

to

So they blamed poor initial reviews from professional critics for the
failure of of DA2. Their solution was to control the initial reviews of
ME3 by bringing the gaming media into line.

is quite frankly bizaar.

[Headcount]

The reason we got to this point is because of impossible development time and written in stone release dates.  A game like ME3 should have had a 4 to 5 year development time. The original ending screamed rushed and it won't matter if they are listening if BW and EA only concern is getting their next game out the door quickly as possible.

[Kawamura]

wolfsite wrote...

The problem is no matter what Bioware does there are CERTAIN people who immediately look for the worse possible way to spin it or go directly to ignoring and continue to whine like they own the company.

The problem is not listening to the fans it's following through with what the fans want becuase honestly, not even we know what we want.  Every time a question is asked they either get nerd rage without any context or they get so many diverse ideas there is nothing consistant to use meaning some people will be satisfied and others will think that they are not listening or don't care and continue to hate on them.

Honestly with all this going on I'm just glad they are continuing to make games as with many people if they conitnue getting hate and negativity without context or constructive criticism it would be a sign to move on and do other things (like some have already done).

It feels like the fans are saying "you can make games, but we will hate you for it."  Even in threads were people look at the good things someone comes in a spews hate without reasons why and de-rails the thread into bickering among the fans (just look at the now closed character appreciation thread).

Some people either need to grow up, look at the big picture of how a game developer works, or just move on and find something else.


You may know ignore what I said and call me a fanboy for not agreeing with your opinion and having one of my own in 5...4...3..2....

You know what would help all this?

Synthesis. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Headcount wrote...

The reason we got to this point is because of impossible development time and written in stone release dates.  A game like ME3 should have had a 4 to 5 year development time. The original ending screamed rushed and it won't matter if they are listening if BW and EA only concern is getting their next game out the door quickly as possible.

4 or 5 years of development time would bloat the budget massively, while at the same time reducing interest as people moved onto newer and more frequent things. Relegating Mass Effect to 'reclusive cult classic' doesn't strike me as in anyone's best interest, especially as it would prompt more, not less, shady attempts to spur interest and marketing gimicks.

[Whatislove?]

I just want more mass effect lol. This universe can't just disappear, it's one of the best sci-fi rpg's imo.

[Redbelle]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Headcount wrote...

The reason we got to this point is because of impossible development time and written in stone release dates.  A game like ME3 should have had a 4 to 5 year development time. The original ending screamed rushed and it won't matter if they are listening if BW and EA only concern is getting their next game out the door quickly as possible.

4 or 5 years of development time would bloat the budget massively, while at the same time reducing interest as people moved onto newer and more frequent things. Relegating Mass Effect to 'reclusive cult classic' doesn't strike me as in anyone's best interest, especially as it would prompt more, not less, shady attempts to spur interest and marketing gimicks.

How long was Halo not around for? Both with Reach and without?

I can understand having to rush. But having obvious bugs in game will do as good a job of devaluing the franchise as players will think the Dev's have lost their magic touch.

I know there is a relationship between time and money, but their is also a relationship between product quality and confidence.

This time around, it felt like the money argument won out. Which is funny, because in economic terms, money is an expression of confidence. You put your money into the product you think will do the job.

ME4's takings in the first week will be interesting to look at.

[jstme]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Headcount wrote...

The reason we got to this point is because of impossible development time and written in stone release dates.  A game like ME3 should have had a 4 to 5 year development time. The original ending screamed rushed and it won't matter if they are listening if BW and EA only concern is getting their next game out the door quickly as possible.

4 or 5 years of development time would bloat the budget massively, while at the same time reducing interest as people moved onto newer and more frequent things. Relegating Mass Effect to 'reclusive cult classic' doesn't strike me as in anyone's best interest, especially as it would prompt more, not less, shady attempts to spur interest and marketing gimicks.

Skyrim did really good with 3 and a half years of development behind it. People did not seem to move anywhere ,10 million copies sold afterall. Bloated budget did not seem to interfere with overbloated profits.
And amazingly it does not feel rushed like recent Bioware games do.
Different genre? Sure. But i assure you that if ME3 had 3.5 years and every mission had the same depth as Tuchanka
arch - it would suffer from loss of interest adn bloated budget just as Skyrim "suffers" now and not lie around in bargain bins after initial preorder hype blew away.

[Robhuzz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Headcount wrote...

The reason we got to this point is because of impossible development time and written in stone release dates.  A game like ME3 should have had a 4 to 5 year development time. The original ending screamed rushed and it won't matter if they are listening if BW and EA only concern is getting their next game out the door quickly as possible.

4 or 5 years of development time would bloat the budget massively, while at the same time reducing interest as people moved onto newer and more frequent things. Relegating Mass Effect to 'reclusive cult classic' doesn't strike me as in anyone's best interest, especially as it would prompt more, not less, shady attempts to spur interest and marketing gimicks.

That can be easily solved by spending more money on the game itself and the people making the game, instead of pouring money into marketing.

A good game sells itself anyway. Only ones that are not good enough need tons of marketing to achieve the same amount of sales.

ETA: And 4 - 5 years isn't necessary. A 3 - 3,5 year dev cycle as opposed to the 2 years they had now would've made all the difference. It would've made ME3 the best game in the series (provided they fixed the main plot and ending ofc, which they probably would've if they had had more time) and it would still be selling for full price today.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 25 novembre 2012 - 08:05 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Robhuzz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Headcount wrote...

The reason we got to this point is because of impossible development time and written in stone release dates.  A game like ME3 should have had a 4 to 5 year development time. The original ending screamed rushed and it won't matter if they are listening if BW and EA only concern is getting their next game out the door quickly as possible.

4 or 5 years of development time would bloat the budget massively, while at the same time reducing interest as people moved onto newer and more frequent things. Relegating Mass Effect to 'reclusive cult classic' doesn't strike me as in anyone's best interest, especially as it would prompt more, not less, shady attempts to spur interest and marketing gimicks.

That can be easily solved by spending more money on the game itself and the people making the game, instead of pouring money into marketing.

What do you think the biggest costs of game creation are? It isn't marketting, which only kicks in towards the end of the cycle anyway.

Spending more money on the game itself, and for years longer, is exactly what will bloat the budget: you're prolonging the biggest costs of the project, the salaries of the workers and creators.

A good game sells itself anyway. Only ones that are not good enough need tons of marketing to achieve the same amount of sales.

The history of marketting would disagree with you. If marketting wasn't needed to spur demand, corporations wouldn't waste money on it.

ETA: And 4 - 5 years isn't necessary. A 3 - 3,5 year dev cycle as opposed to the 2 years they had now would've made all the difference. It would've made ME3 the best game in the series (provided they fixed the main plot and ending ofc, which they probably would've if they had had more time) and it would still be selling for full price today.

Maybe, maybe not. A number of things people didn't like about the game were design decisions, not accidents. While handling of those decisions might have improved with more time, underlying design wouldn't have. Cerberus was still going to be a charicature, the Crucible still would have been pursued as the only means for victory, and the Catalyst would still exist to inform us of how the Reapers intend to save us from our own robots.

Moreover, selling at full price even today would assume that there's a continuing demand even today: the majority of games sold occurs within the first few weeks after release. While ME3 did take a price dive sooner than most, it was still after most the money to be made, was made.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nowhere in what you quoted supports that distinction.

What did do you expect him to say? Do you understand how deciphering something even works? In the legal profession you get loads of paper work blabbing on about xyz in bland even arcane form but behind the polished facade is the ugly truth.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 08:35 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nowhere in what you quoted supports that distinction.

What did do you expect him to say?

The developer or the poster?

The developer I can expect to make a distinction if a distinction is relevant, or to spend follow-on comments to suggest such a clarification. As the quote in question does (by focusing on the fan reviews of specific complaints), the developer does in fact do this.

I can expect the poster to not make baselessly specific claims when a developer makes a reasonable but vague statement that can include both 'professional' and 'fan' scores in metacritic, especially when the poster uses it as the basis of claiming what amounts to a conspiracy theory. Especially when that conspiracy theory is now being defended on the insinuation that the developer can only be trusted if it supports the conspiracy theory, and otherwise is an unreliable source.

Do you understand how deciphering something even works?

Er, yes. It is in fact my job to recognize vague statments and categories as such and to NOT jump to the interpretation that support my bias.

In the legal profession you get loads of paper work blabbing on about xyz in bland even arcane form but behind the polished facade is the ugly truth.

And the ugly truth that Bioware initated a campaign to buy the positive professional reviews of ME3 in response to a sub-expectated metacritic review of DA2 comes from... what other evidence?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 novembre 2012 - 09:07 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

Vague statements by presidents, economic ministers, and central bank presidents move markets and billions across the globe in an instant. So yes "vague statements" are open to interpretation based on "bias". It's called judgement and it matters.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 09:30 .

[Tank207]

Considering a good chunk of the fanbase has them figuratively up against a wall with a knife to their throat... yeah I think they're at least attempting to listen.

I just wish they would be more open about things instead of constantly making excuses for why certain things are the way they are. Their PR is shot to hell and gone.

[Dean_the_Young]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Vague statements by presidents, economic ministers, and central bank presidents move markets and billions across the globe in an instant. So yes "vague statements" are open to interpretation based on "bias". It's called judgement and it matters.

Sound judgement requires substance to back it up to be considered reasonable. Sound judgement also requires reading into the vagueness of what has actually been said, rather than creating something that wasn't.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

wolfsite wrote...

The problem is no matter what Bioware does there are CERTAIN people who immediately look for the worse possible way to spin it or go directly to ignoring and continue to whine like they own the company.

What other recourse do we have? Going elsewhere won't change Bioware's production. The only recourse we have is to come here and whine. That's what we will continue to do.

Devs hate the whining. They know we whine to our friends about it. They know when we see someone pick up a box with their names on it we whine to them about it.

[The Spamming Troll]

id rather stick my thumb up my butt then post in any of those "tell the devs your opinion" threads.

it all feels the same.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 25 novembre 2012 - 09:59 .