325 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

Bioware not using your ideas = They don't care about your opinion?

Modifié par Eterna5, 26 novembre 2012 - 12:18 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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...

It's not even that different in context though. What companies or governments say publicly is analyzed relentlessly. 

Dean_the_Young wrote...


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.

Some of those games weren't even made under EA or were already near completion when EA took over.

In any case the only negatively reviewed game was DA2. EA would doll out cash only after given a reason to.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 26 novembre 2012 - 12:20 .

[Verit]

Ultimately actions speak louder than words. As far as I'm concerned they showed how much they cared about our opinion with Mass Effect 3, and I'm not prepared to invest time in their future Mass Effect games only for them to ruin their own story all over again.

[Dean_the_Young]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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...

It's not even that different in context though.

A video game designer saying that they try and reach a meta-critic score by listening to substantive fan critiques isn't that different from a multinational banking firm committing what can politely be called fraud in the scale of billions of dollars?

What companies or governments say publicly is analyzed relentlessly. 

Sure. Much of it poorly.

Some of those games weren't even made under EA or were already near completion when EA took over.

And they lacked aggressive marketing campaigns because of it?

In any case the only negatively reviewed game was DA2. EA would doll out cash only after given a reason to.

Or, alternatively, cash was more successfully dolled out for the others... if it was cash at all. Source, please?

But this gets us back to the conspiracy that there was only a change in marketting for Bioware games after DA2, which still lacks support. Considering that ME2 garned 30 100's from professional reviewers according to the metascore...

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 26 novembre 2012 - 12:50 .

[Iakus]

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.

I feel I need to comment on this.

That may not have been the intention, but "hey everyone, we're artistes... deal with it" was exactly the sense of what I felt.  I felt like I was being told "The endings are great.  You just don't get it, so we're going to have to explain them to you louder and slower. "  

Sorry but, some of us already "got" the endings.  And thought they were a betrayal of everything that came before in Mass Effect.  Like it was just a tacked on "Message" to make the game seem deeper and more literary.  More a "work of art and stuff" as you put it.   Quite simply, they didn't fit the story that was being told for the last five years.  We called you (general "you" not specifically you.  You're cool)   on it, and were told, in essence "deal with it"

Again, that may not have been the intention (in fact, it almost certainly wasn't)  but that's the impression it left.  

[xsdob]

I think they do, in my opinion anyway.

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

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.

I feel I need to comment on this.

That may not have been the intention, but "hey everyone, we're artistes... deal with it" was exactly the sense of what I felt.  I felt like I was being told "The endings are great.  You just don't get it, so we're going to have to explain them to you louder and slower. "  

Sorry but, some of us already "got" the endings.  And thought they were a betrayal of everything that came before in Mass Effect.  Like it was just a tacked on "Message" to make the game seem deeper and more literary.  More a "work of art and stuff" as you put it.   Quite simply, they didn't fit the story that was being told for the last five years.  We called you (general "you" not specifically you.  You're cool)   on it, and were told, in essence "deal with it"

Again, that may not have been the intention (in fact, it almost certainly wasn't)  but that's the impression it left.  

So a more important question is why did you feel like that?

Was it just really sore at the time of the comments? Interpretation of a typed message?  Or just anger for angers sake? 

[Binary_Helix 1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A video game designer saying that they try and reach a meta-critic score by listening to substantive fan critiques isn't that different from a multinational banking firm committing what can politely be called fraud in the scale of billions of dollars?

That "video game designer" is part of a billion dollar publically traded company now named the worst firm in America.

Dean_the_Young wrote...And they lacked aggressive marketing campaigns because of it?

Bioware was a small to medium sized company in a niche rpg market. Good word of mouth and strong reputation is what built their success not glitzy media campaigns or fancy press events. Now they have access to the resources of multi-billion EA.

Dean_the_Young wrote...Or, alternatively, cash was more successfully dolled out for the others... if it was cash at all. Source, please?

But this gets us back to the conspiracy that there was only a change in marketting for Bioware games after DA2, which still lacks support. Considering that ME2 garned 30 100's from professional reviewers according to the metascore...

I've provided sources to you before and you disregard them so I'm not going to bother again. EA's own financial documentation shows it spent nearly a billion dollars on marketing alone. That's more than most firms make in total revenue.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 26 novembre 2012 - 01:12 .

[drewid78]

First off thank you for the interaction and feedback Allan. The problem I (and I feel many others) have with the statement you made re art...

Allan Schumacher wrote... 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.

is that this argument is subjective on the type of 'art' we are talking about, if it was a painting I may say "Allan, I think its crap... but if you change it I will buy it, if you dont I wont..." The problem with ME3 was that many people had invested 80+ hours (per character) to get to the point of playing ME3 (we had brought the ME1 and ME2 paintings) we saw the initial sketch on the canvas for ME3 and brought it (pre-ordered) on the strength of it... Many people feel (not all, i dont claim to speak for everyone!) feel that by the time they got their painting it was a picture of something completely different... and being as this is a type of art brought unseen... they can only ask for the change after delivery (film are close to this but much less time hungry... for films imagine the Lord of the Rings trilogy, where the last film switched to battlefield earth half way through...)


Again thanks for taking the time personally and on behalf of bioware to respond... I hope this at least clarifies why I would like bioware to change the art they produced... but that I brought.

[Blue Liara]

iakus wrote...

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.

I feel I need to comment on this.

That may not have been the intention, but "hey everyone, we're artistes... deal with it" was exactly the sense of what I felt.  I felt like I was being told "The endings are great.  You just don't get it, so we're going to have to explain them to you louder and slower. "  

Sorry but, some of us already "got" the endings.  And thought they were a betrayal of everything that came before in Mass Effect.  Like it was just a tacked on "Message" to make the game seem deeper and more literary.  More a "work of art and stuff" as you put it.   Quite simply, they didn't fit the story that was being told for the last five years.  We called you (general "you" not specifically you.  You're cool)   on it, and were told, in essence "deal with it"

Again, that may not have been the intention (in fact, it almost certainly wasn't)  but that's the impression it left.  

Agree with this. Even if it was not the intention. It certainly felt like it was. Felt very dismissive. It was not as if they came up and said,

"we're really sorry that we are artists and artistic integrity, we really wish we didn't but we do so theres nothing we can do". 

Nope it felt like, "Artistic integrity defines us and protects us, all who disagree are wrong and should go away". It was only because they got so overwhelmed by the dissatisfaction that the ending was changed. 

I feel that all the "asking fans" for their feedback for ME4, is the PR guys being as careful as possible to make it look like they have listened to the fans. I hope its genuine. But all the evidence with regards to the ME3 story seem to suggest otherwise.

Before anyone says that the multi-player DLC had fan input STOP. I am NOT refering to multi-player DLC which has NO impact on Lore or their artistic integrity. It is also an easy was for them to make money through micro-transactions. So there is no issue with listenign to fans on multiplayer because its not a hard thing to do. 

The Leviathan DLCs and the Omega DLC were already in the pipeline, they were not a response to fan feedback. 

[LinksOcarina]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A video game designer saying that they try and reach a meta-critic score by listening to substantive fan critiques isn't that different from a multinational banking firm committing what can politely be called fraud in the scale of billions of dollars?

That "video game designer" is part of a billion dollar publically traded company now named the worst firm in America.

Dean_the_Young wrote...And they lacked aggressive marketing campaigns because of it?

Bioware was a small to medium sized company in a niche rpg market. Good word of mouth and strong reputation is what built their success not glitzy media campaigns or fancy press events. Now they have access to the resources of multi-billion EA.

Dean_the_Young wrote...Or, alternatively, cash was more successfully dolled out for the others... if it was cash at all. Source, please?

But this gets us back to the conspiracy that there was only a change in marketting for Bioware games after DA2, which still lacks support. Considering that ME2 garned 30 100's from professional reviewers according to the metascore...

I've provided sources to you before and you disregard them so I'm not going to bother again. EA's own financial documentation shows it spent nearly a billion dollars on marketing alone. That's more than most games make in total revenue.

That is also the norm for most game companies. You think EA is unique in the amount of money they spent on marketing? 

That is also part of the problem of the industry as a whole, but lacks any relevancy to this entire discussion, because the marketing behind the games, be it small scale or large scale, is designed to sell a product above all else. 

Oh, and EA being voted the worst company in the U.S is just sour grapes on an arbitrary online poll that just so happened to be running when Mass Effect 3 was released. Timing had a lot to do with that...

[LinksOcarina]

drewid78 wrote...




First off thank you for the interaction and feedback Allan. The problem I (and I feel many others) have with the statement you made re art...

Allan Schumacher wrote... 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.

is that this argument is subjective on the type of 'art' we are talking about, if it was a painting I may say "Allan, I think its crap... but if you change it I will buy it, if you dont I wont..." The problem with ME3 was that many people had invested 80+ hours (per character) to get to the point of playing ME3 (we had brought the ME1 and ME2 paintings) we saw the initial sketch on the canvas for ME3 and brought it (pre-ordered) on the strength of it... Many people feel (not all, i dont claim to speak for everyone!) feel that by the time they got their painting it was a picture of something completely different... and being as this is a type of art brought unseen... they can only ask for the change after delivery (film are close to this but much less time hungry... for films imagine the Lord of the Rings trilogy, where the last film switched to battlefield earth half way through...)


Again thanks for taking the time personally and on behalf of bioware to respond... I hope this at least clarifies why I would like bioware to change the art they produced... but that I brought.

I implore you to check out a documentary called The People vs George Lucas.

It's an interesting take on fandom at large, and how divisive loving something so much can be, especially after loving it for so long. 

[Xellith]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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 what of the writers and level designers for bioware?  Is their "art", and what they think is good irrelevant?  If I just designed the most perfect ending/level/whatever to ME3 and casey hudson came to me and said "we are gonna do it X way instead and not your way" then as an artist I get to have an issue with it right?  Or do I have to do what I need to do in order to keep employed?

Modifié par Xellith, 26 novembre 2012 - 01:25 .

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

iakus wrote...

I feel I need to comment on this.

That may not have been the intention, but "hey everyone, we're artistes... deal with it" was exactly the sense of what I felt.  I felt like I was being told "The endings are great.  You just don't get it, so we're going to have to explain them to you louder and slower. "  

Sorry but, some of us already "got" the endings.  And thought they were a betrayal of everything that came before in Mass Effect.  Like it was just a tacked on "Message" to make the game seem deeper and more literary.  More a "work of art and stuff" as you put it.   Quite simply, they didn't fit the story that was being told for the last five years.  We called you (general "you" not specifically you.  You're cool)   on it, and were told, in essence "deal with it"

Again, that may not have been the intention (in fact, it almost certainly wasn't)  but that's the impression it left.  

So a more important question is why did you feel like that?

Was it just really sore at the time of the comments? Interpretation of a typed message?  Or just anger for angers sake? 

Why?  Probably a bit of everything.  Anger.  Interpretation.  Dashed hopes.  I
thought it seemed very dismissive of our concerns (as others have pointed out) 
Like it was our own fault for not comprehending the awesomeness.  

[Binary_Helix 1]

LinksOcarina wrote...

That is also the norm for most game companies. You think EA is unique in the amount of money they spent on marketing? 

That is also part of the problem of the industry as a whole, but lacks any relevancy to this entire discussion, because the marketing behind the games, be it small scale or large scale, is designed to sell a product above all else. 

Oh, and EA being voted the worst company in the U.S is just sour grapes on an arbitrary online poll that just so happened to be running when Mass Effect 3 was released. Timing had a lot to do with that...

Most game companies aren't publically traded so what the norm is or isn't is hard to say but EA's numbers are huge.

When a game needs lots of marketing money behind it suggests to me it can't rely on word of mouth and reviews alone.

EA won it's dubious title on a consumer poll which isn't quite as insignifigant as you think bad timing or not they won fair.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 26 novembre 2012 - 01:28 .

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

iakus wrote...

I feel I need to comment on this.

That may not have been the intention, but "hey everyone, we're artistes... deal with it" was exactly the sense of what I felt.  I felt like I was being told "The endings are great.  You just don't get it, so we're going to have to explain them to you louder and slower. "  

Sorry but, some of us already "got" the endings.  And thought they were a betrayal of everything that came before in Mass Effect.  Like it was just a tacked on "Message" to make the game seem deeper and more literary.  More a "work of art and stuff" as you put it.   Quite simply, they didn't fit the story that was being told for the last five years.  We called you (general "you" not specifically you.  You're cool)   on it, and were told, in essence "deal with it"

Again, that may not have been the intention (in fact, it almost certainly wasn't)  but that's the impression it left.  

So a more important question is why did you feel like that?

Was it just really sore at the time of the comments? Interpretation of a typed message?  Or just anger for angers sake? 

Why?  Probably a bit of everything.  Anger.  Interpretation.  Dashed hopes.  I
thought it seemed very dismissive of our concerns (as others have pointed out) 
Like it was our own fault for not comprehending the awesomeness.  

And do you agree with those feelings still, or is it different now? 

[crimzontearz]

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.

sure, now please explain to me exactly why after being asked numerous times to at least expand on Living Shepards fate post the breath scene all we got was "headcanon it people, using your imagination" or worse "for all you know that is his last breath :trollface:"

no really, because NO ONE ASKED TO CHANGE THAT....only to confirm something

[LinksOcarina]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

That is also the norm for most game companies. You think EA is unique in the amount of money they spent on marketing? 

That is also part of the problem of the industry as a whole, but lacks any relevancy to this entire discussion, because the marketing behind the games, be it small scale or large scale, is designed to sell a product above all else. 

Oh, and EA being voted the worst company in the U.S is just sour grapes on an arbitrary online poll that just so happened to be running when Mass Effect 3 was released. Timing had a lot to do with that...

Most game companies aren't publically traded so what the norm is or isn't is hard to say but EA's numbers are huge.

When a game needs lots of marketing money behind it suggests to me it can't rely on word of mouth and reviews alone.

EA won it's dubious title on a consumer poll which isn't quite as insignifigant as you think bad timing or not they won fair.

Well, your suggestion is wrong because marketing is just one aspect of promotion, along with word of mouth and review scores, previews, interviews, and so forth. Plus, technically all of this minus reviews falls under marketing anyway, just in different degrees, both big and miniscule. 

As for budgets, the average is around the $10-$20 million mark on an average AAA title. 

And yes, a consumer online poll, where thousands of angry and uninformed gamers voted, multiple times, for EA to "win."

Consumer poll or not, its still irrelevent and arbitrary. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 26 novembre 2012 - 01:35 .

[Kezzup]

crimzontearz wrote...

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.

sure, now please explain to me exactly why after being asked numerous times to at least expand on Living Shepards fate post the breath scene all we got was "headcanon it people, using your imagination" or worse "for all you know that is his last breath :trollface:"

... BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO WRITE THAT. THAT IS WHY.

[FlamingBoy]

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.

No one is seriously suggesting that you openly hand out money to the reviewers, It is much more subtle than that, the dodgy relationship between reviews advertisement money and the cozy relationship between reviewer and PR is astonding and it shocks me that no one would even consider how it would look.

Possibly the most disgraceful example (there are many others) was the inclusion of diana allers who happened to be a game journalist still actively working on the video game news site IGN, which me3 got a 9.5 out of (which apparently is the secound highest score) the reviewer also became the avatar of this weird (and absurd) "entitlement" cause that swept the industry.

Organisations really need to consider how they look

[crimzontearz]

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

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.

sure, now please explain to me exactly why after being asked numerous times to at least expand on Living Shepards fate post the breath scene all we got was "headcanon it people, using your imagination" or worse "for all you know that is his last breath :trollface:"

... BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO WRITE THAT. THAT IS WHY.

and I don't want to give them my money for their next title....which I will likely get used if at all

everybody wins

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

And do you agree with those feelings still, or is it different now? 

Absolutely i do.  EC only reinforced it.It gave me the impression that our suggestions were paid attention to like the husband in a sitcom listens to his wife:  absently nodding his head while watching the game on tv, then ending up with only a vague idea of what was actually discussed.

Which is why the idea of ME4 and fan opinions only mildly interests me.  Because in the end, it's not going to matter.