325 réponses à ce sujet

[Redbelle]

sH0tgUn jUliA 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.

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.

Fans........... neigh. Consumers, have every right to complain about a product that did not meet their requirements and/or expectations.

At least this way we weigh the possibility that they will not think poorly thought out Deus Ex Machina's are a fitting ending to what was an epic sci-fi game.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

This isn't a courtroom. Setting the burden of proof so high as to make judgement calls impossible is what I see you doing.

What I know for sure is that a decade ago only a dozen games each gen got nines and now top scores are handed out in abundance. Something has changed and given how aggressively the "75 perfect scores" was marketed and the fact a major gaming company journalist was featured in a game there is plenty of reasons to be suspicious. Political and business news is manipulated all the time and it's not crazy to assume the same conflicts of interest are at work now in the gaming press.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:13 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

This isn't a courtroom. Setting the burden of proof so high as to make judgement calls impossible is what I see you doing.

'So high'? Since when has 'don't misrepresent what people say to fit your theory' been considered 'too high'?

Not committing a strawman argument is a basic expectation of any discussion.

What I know for sure is that a decade ago only a dozen games each gen got nines and now top scores are handed out in abundance. Something has changed and given how aggressively the "75 perfect scores" was marketed and the fact a major gaming company journalist was featured in a game there is plenty of reasons to be suspicious. Political and business news is manipulated all the time and it's not crazy to assume the same conflicts of interest are at work now in the gaming press.

Let's ignore that a decade ago there were fewer games and far fewer reviewers and collections of reviews. Let's also ignore your (and mine and every other human's) tendency to blur the memories over ten years. Sure, the market's crooked. Now how does the quote support tamperous's claim that Bioware chose to buy the 75 reviews in response to the metascore reviews of DA2?

Both parts of this claim are important. The first half is a reasonable assessment of the industry based on current practices: companies court reviewers and control access to solicit better reviews (and, because pettiness is always a two-way thing, likely reviewers will mark down games they don't feel they got access to). The second half, which claims that ME3 was subject to some exceptional change of course in response to a specific stimulus (DA2 metacritic), is what makes the claim a conspiracy theory... one further weakened by the lack of evidence and misrepresentation of an ambiguous classification into a specific position.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:28 .

[JPR1964]

NO!

it's Preventive PR talk for me...

Here I come COD in space in his million selling games...

So original...

JPR out!

[Binary_Helix 1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So high'? Since when has 'don't misrepresent what people say to fit your theory' been considered 'too high'?

Not committing a strawman argument is a basic expectation of any discussion.

The top executives of failed banks were telling investors everything was ok and the "fundamentals were strong" weeks sometimes even days before they collapsed. Suggesting an ulterior motive would probably be "irrational" and "biased" to you.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

What I know for sure is that a decade ago only a dozen games each gen got nines and now top scores are handed out in abundance. Something has changed and given how aggressively the "75 perfect scores" was marketed and the fact a major gaming company journalist was featured in a game there is plenty of reasons to be suspicious. Political and business news is manipulated all the time and it's not crazy to assume the same conflicts of interest are at work now in the gaming press.

Let's ignore that a decade ago there were fewer games and far fewer reviewers and collections of reviews. Let's also ignore your (and mine and every other human's) tendency to blur the memories over ten years. Sure, the market's crooked. Now how does the quote support tamperous's claim that Bioware chose to buy the 75 reviews in response to the metascore reviews of DA2?

Both parts of this claim are important. The first half is a reasonable assessment of the industry based on current practices: companies court reviewers and control access to solicit better reviews (and, because pettiness is always a two-way thing, likely reviewers will mark down games they don't feel they got access to). The second half, which claims that ME3 was subject to some exceptional change of course in response to a specific stimulus (DA2 metacritic), is what makes the claim a conspiracy theory... one further weakened by the lack of evidence and misrepresentation of an ambiguous classification into a specific position.

EA spends large amounts of money on marketing and have been exposed by a former employee as trying to influence conversations on forums. They care a whole lot about their public perception and spend top dollar on trying to shape it.

www.cinemablend.com/games/EA-Viral-Marketing-Exposed-Big-Buyout-Horizon-40885.html

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:47 .

[clarkusdarkus]

i remember the thread regarding the endings ( yes we are listening ) that was 100's of pages long.......

[devSin]

clarkusdarkus wrote...

i remember the thread regarding the endings ( yes we are listening ) that was 100's of pages long.......

I like how it stated that they'd be happy to come and talk about the endings once more people had finished the game.

I guess there are some slow players out there, or something.

[Dean_the_Young]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So high'? Since when has 'don't misrepresent what people say to fit your theory' been considered 'too high'?

Not committing a strawman argument is a basic expectation of any discussion.

The top executives of failed banks were telling investors everything was ok and the "fundamentals were strong" weeks sometimes even days before they collapsed. Suggesting an ulterior motive would probably be "irrational" and "biased" to you.

Suggesting an ulterior motive without supporting evidence of duplicity, while simultaneously using their words as a credited source for your argument, is more than irrational: it's hypocritical.

You can not simultaneously say that someone is a total liar who can not be trusted, and then rest an argument on them being honest in the context you choose to quote them in.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

What I know for sure is that a decade ago only a dozen games each gen got nines and now top scores are handed out in abundance. Something has changed and given how aggressively the "75 perfect scores" was marketed and the fact a major gaming company journalist was featured in a game there is plenty of reasons to be suspicious. Political and business news is manipulated all the time and it's not crazy to assume the same conflicts of interest are at work now in the gaming press.

Let's ignore that a decade ago there were fewer games and far fewer reviewers and collections of reviews. Let's also ignore your (and mine and every other human's) tendency to blur the memories over ten years. Sure, the market's crooked. Now how does the quote support tamperous's claim that Bioware chose to buy the 75 reviews in response to the metascore reviews of DA2?

Both parts of this claim are important. The first half is a reasonable assessment of the industry based on current practices: companies court reviewers and control access to solicit better reviews (and, because pettiness is always a two-way thing, likely reviewers will mark down games they don't feel they got access to). The second half, which claims that ME3 was subject to some exceptional change of course in response to a specific stimulus (DA2 metacritic), is what makes the claim a conspiracy theory... one further weakened by the lack of evidence and misrepresentation of an ambiguous classification into a specific position.

EA spends large amounts of money on marketing and have been exposed by a former employee as trying to influence conversations on forums. They care a whole lot about their public perception and spend top dollar on trying to shape it.

www.cinemablend.com/games/EA-Viral-Marketing-Exposed-Big-Buyout-Horizon-40885.html

Since you seemed to have missed it, I'll repeat.

How does the quote support tamperous's claim that Bioware chose to buy the 75 reviews in response to the metascore reviews of DA2?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:54 .

[Dean_the_Young]

devSin wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

i remember the thread regarding the endings ( yes we are listening ) that was 100's of pages long.......

I like how it stated that they'd be happy to come and talk about the endings once more people had finished the game.

I guess there are some slow players out there, or something.

And some slow forum followers, who missed what happened when they tried.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:56 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Suggesting an ulterior motive without supporting evidence of duplicity, while simultaneously using their words as a credited source for your argument, is more than irrational: it's hypocritical.

You can not simultaneously say that someone is a total liar who can not be trusted, and then rest an argument on them being honest in the context you choose to quote them in.

Point is what you call "misinterpretation" could easily be applied to other contexts in which case you'd be bamboozled.

Dean_the_Young wrote...


Since you seemed to have missed it, I'll repeat.

How does the quote support tamperous's claim that Bioware chose to buy the 75 reviews in response to the metascore reviews of DA2?

You seemed to have missed it. EA's behaviors past and present are well documented. It's not crazy to assume the weak reviews for DA2 could prompt a more aggressive media and marketing campaign for ME3. Their media budget is astronomical.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:08 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Suggesting an ulterior motive without supporting evidence of duplicity, while simultaneously using their words as a credited source for your argument, is more than irrational: it's hypocritical.

You can not simultaneously say that someone is a total liar who can not be trusted, and then rest an argument on them being honest in the context you choose to quote them in.

Point is what you call "misinterpretation" could easily be applied to other contexts in which case you'd be bamboozled.

Misrepresentation, actually. And if you take anything out of context and apply it to another, you'd make it ridiculous. This is a redundant truism.

But since we're not dealing with all-encompasing category of absolutes, or borderline-malevolent financial institutions with massively harmful predatory practices...

Dean_the_Young wrote...


Since you seemed to have missed it, I'll repeat.

How does the quote support tamperous's claim that Bioware chose to buy the 75 reviews in response to the metascore reviews of DA2?

You seemed to have missed it. EA's behaviors past and present are well documented. It's not crazy to assume the weak reviews for DA2 could prompt a more aggressive media and marketing campaign for ME3. Their media budget is astronomical.

As oppossed to the aggressive media and marketing campaigns that solicited many positive official reviews for DAO, DA2, ME1, and ME2?

This is the point where indicating a difference and a causation, ie providing support for a claim, are the key between differentiating between credible arguments and the plausible arguments resting on a vague sense of truthiness.

[Allan Schumacher]

However. Even these, (I'll use the term loosely) artists, get it wrong from time to time. It's at this point when they need to fall back on their experience of how to get the job done.

Also. Art is not made in a vacuum. I do not accept is that BW's argument that the ending is artistic and therefore above critiscism. I can judge art and I judge the ending to be lousy for a number of evident reasons.

The critiques regarding the artistic integrity is something that grates my teeth.

Ray didn't go and say "hey everyone, we're artistes... deal with /trollface." Although it seems like when he used the term "artistic integrity" people all seemed to think that BioWare was trying to save face by going "oh look, it's like a work of art and stuff." Criticizing the ending is fine. Where the "artistic integrity" comes in is purely to the requests/demands to change what is there.

If I make something, it's fine for people to go "Allan, I think that's crap." But asking me to change it when I don't want to change it is something else entirely.

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.

This is so absolutely wrong. As Mike states in his post, we aim for a metacritic of 90. That is, we get a decent idea on whether or not we delivered a type of product we want to deliver based on this average. This goal is completely undermined if we just go out and buy review scores like fans seem to think we do.


That DA2 didn't get a 90 makes us go "Where did we go wrong, and what can we do to remedy this?"  At no point during the discussion does anyone go "We could always give reviewers some fat cheques and gifts and stuff!"  If we just bought reviews, we'd have different types of goals.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:27 .

[Dominus]

If I make something, it's fine for people to go "Allan, I think that's crap." But asking me to change it when I don't want to change it is something else entirely.

That, which was a primary issue I mentioned in the "Yes, We are Listening" thread in the ME3 forums. There is a key difference between taking feedback into consideration, and simply submitting to fan demands for the sake of making money and/or saving face. Fans are still part of that journey, but it's ultimately their vision for what developers want to make.

Modifié par DominusVita, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:31 .

[Peranor]

 

I think it would be best if if Bioware just said
"screw you and screw your opinions. We have a artistic vision and we're not gonna let some simple-minded fans get in the way of that. We're doing this our own way"

And then just keep everything in secrecy until the day the game is released. That way at least people wouldn't get any false notions that their feedback was somehow collected and considered. And it wouldn't be any complaints about how Bioware "didn't listen".
Well... there would probably be anyway. But then they can at least just point to that previous statement and tell the complainers to shut up.

Modifié par anorling, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:35 .

[archangel1996]

Well people who says "Allan, I think that's crap" hadn't buoght the crap
And if Alan will sell the crap i hope he will not say something like this

Modifié par archangel1996, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:33 .

[Squallypo]

hehe sounds like some "artist" would rather starve themself than rather sell a product that the audience is interested in instead they give delusion of options and choice of your own within the game.

[Applepie_Svk]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There is one good thing about both Mass Effect 3 and artistic integrity... lot of good MEMEs...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:38 .

[CptBomBom00]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There is one good thing about both Mass Effect 3 and artistic integrity... lot of good MEMEs...

Yep,  and do they prove IT?

[MegaSovereign]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There is one good thing about both Mass Effect 3 and artistic integrity... lot of good MEMEs...

"Does it prove IT?", "We'll bang, Okay?", and Marauder Shields were good....The Artistic Integrity memes got old after like the first week.

[ElSuperGecko]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...
There is one good thing about both Mass Effect 3 and artistic integrity... lot of good MEMEs...

"Does it prove IT?", "We'll bang, Okay?", and Marauder Shields were good....The Artistic Integrity memes got old after like the first week.

I preferred the "entitled whiners" one myself.

Seems like quite an appropriate one tonight, as well.

[Squallypo]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There is one good thing about both Mass Effect 3 and artistic integrity... lot of good MEMEs...

"Does it prove IT?", "We'll bang, Okay?", and Marauder Shields were good....The Artistic Integrity memes got old after like the first week.

awesome memes that will go on and on forever and ever  if anyone has seen TED and remember the lighting or thunger song part, thats what i think about the artistic integrity  of ME 3 

[Dean_the_Young]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

This is so absolutely wrong. As Mike states in his post, we aim for a metacritic of 90. That is, we get a decent idea on whether or not we delivered a type of product we want to deliver based on this average. This goal is completely undermined if we just go out and buy review scores like fans seem to think we do.


That DA2 didn't get a 90 makes us go "Where did we go wrong, and what can we do to remedy this?"  At no point during the discussion does anyone go "We could always give reviewers some fat cheques and gifts and stuff!"  If we just bought reviews, we'd have different types of goals.

Not to mention how little sense that makes. Even if one pursues the 'better metacritic score = more customers = more money!', considering the profit margins per sale you'd have to have a number of insulting assumptions come true in order to make a positive return.

Gamers have to be super-easy to manipulate for a metacritic score to change their buying habits as a group (an insult to players), the game reviewers would have to be willing to be bough cheaply enough so that the change in purchases can cover the cost (an insult to the reviewers), and then this hypothetical Bioware with overwhelming advertising revenue would have to be willing to offer so little for the bribes in the first place (an insult to the company needing the boost in approval).

[cavs25]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

However. Even these, (I'll use the term loosely) artists, get it wrong from time to time. It's at this point when they need to fall back on their experience of how to get the job done.

Also. Art is not made in a vacuum. I do not accept is that BW's argument that the ending is artistic and therefore above critiscism. I can judge art and I judge the ending to be lousy for a number of evident reasons.

The critiques regarding the artistic integrity is something that grates my teeth.

Ray didn't go and say "hey everyone, we're artistes... deal with /trollface." Although it seems like when he used the term "artistic integrity" people all seemed to think that BioWare was trying to save face by going "oh look, it's like a work of art and stuff." Criticizing the ending is fine. Where the "artistic integrity" comes in is purely to the requests/demands to change what is there.

If I make something, it's fine for people to go "Allan, I think that's crap." But asking me to change it when I don't want to change it is something else entirely.

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.

This is so absolutely wrong. As Mike states in his post, we aim for a metacritic of 90. That is, we get a decent idea on whether or not we delivered a type of product we want to deliver based on this average. This goal is completely undermined if we just go out and buy review scores like fans seem to think we do.


That DA2 didn't get a 90 makes us go "Where did we go wrong, and what can we do to remedy this?"  At no point during the discussion does anyone go "We could always give reviewers some fat cheques and gifts and stuff!"  If we just bought reviews, we'd have different types of goals.

When you lie to your customers about the art you are selling them, all those people that paid 60 or 80 dollars have the right to say "change this crap".
There is a very long list of lies from guys like Casey Hudson and Mac Walters from just before the release of mass effect 3.
Games are not paintings, you sold the game on promises you didn't deliver, and people have all the right to constatly call you out on your bs.  

Not speaking to you because I know you had nothing to do with the things I just mentioned, and it is your job to defend the company no matter what.

[cavs25]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...
There is one good thing about both Mass Effect 3 and artistic integrity... lot of good MEMEs...

"Does it prove IT?", "We'll bang, Okay?", and Marauder Shields were good....The Artistic Integrity memes got old after like the first week.

I preferred the "entitled whiners" one myself.

Seems like quite an appropriate one tonight, as well.

I actually prefered the "mindless bioware sheeps" it has a better ring to it.

Ohh it never existed 
well it should have.