325 réponses à ce sujet

[Kezzup]

crimzontearz wrote...

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

Cool story bro.

[JamesFaith]

Xellith wrote...

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?

This is how creative team works - there is place for discussion and demands for change, because their piece, in this case videogame, is still in creation process.

I knew it from personal experience, because I was part of translational team once. Every member could made notes about some aspects, everyone was open to discussion, but there were also team leader, who had last word, because there must be someone who made final decision, where discussion lasted too long and no one was willing to stepped back.

So when my boss tell me, that he wanted change something in translation, or when anthologist have exceptions to my story, I have no problem with it, because this is still part of creative process. Problem is when someone outside of this process demanding change - at this moment is just MY choice to accept it or not and this is artistic integrity. 

Modifié par JamesFaith, 26 novembre 2012 - 01:50 .

[crimzontearz]

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

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

Cool story bro.

got the same answer when I said I was not going to buy DA2 because of the lack of NG+.....you do not see a DA2 icon under my name do you?

[Abraham_uk]

Blue Liara wrote...

Does anyone really believe that Bioware really cares about what fans think for ME4?  

After the debacle that was the ending to ME3 and how Bioware and EA handled the whole thing. I find it a tough time really believing that Bioware and Casey Hudson are doing anything other than paying lips service and covering themselves. 

For example, the latest is that Hudson is asking fans if they would prefer a sequel or a prequel. Now I hope this is a genuine question being asked and not just lip service. For if Hudson and the Bioware team have already started making a ME prequel and it turns out that more people wanted a sequel. How are we going to really know. Its not really giving us a choice. 

However, it does give Bioware the ability to say look we listened to fans the whole way through we care. Then do whatever they want. 

Maybe I'm being too synical. I hope I am. I really hope Casey Hudson actually listens to fans and does not make some awful Deus Ex series again but if I'm honnest I just don't believe it. 

The dissapointment of the original ending, then the awful extra ending. How Bioware handled it. Ugh havent thought about it in so long and now as I write this I get more and more annoyed and I just don't believe that Bioware or Hudson care about the fans feedback.

Again. I hope I am wrong. But I doubt it.

The team at Bioware really do go out of their way to make their fans happy.
As you can tell, they don't always succeed.

[JamesFaith]

crimzontearz wrote...

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

But yes, you are asking for change. You are asking for changing purposed uncertainty and just glimpse of hope in undeniable fact.

Still change.

[Archonsg]

@ Allan Schumacher

The problem is perception.
While it might have been true the use of that "Artistic Integrity" comment was not meant to incite or insult anyone, it was perceived as such because it came in defense to a situation so out of control.

A better analysis of why that is, would have been to ask, why so many were angry at the remark.

It was in part that the game, and I stress here again, *the game*, took a turn off into a direction more suited to a book or movie rather than that of a game whose principal actor had for the past 5 years, been in the players control.

Noted, that the story and options given in a game were *always* under the writers control but right up to those last 10 or so minutes those options reflected one of the core principles in the principal actor's core personality. That is to reflect the Renegade / Paragon paths.

Now, if you were to take a closer look at the ending, all three choices, including the fourth (refusal) if you have the Extended Cut, only rewards ONE path. That of the Renegade player. (Control is arguable) Expediency, vague moral choices, even outright betrayal are called for. You can't win with your honor intact.

That is fine for a book or movie.
But not for a game, especially one where the player had over the course of three games had shaped the principal actor's code of conduct.

To have that behavior suddenly changed, and in ME3
ending's case, replaced by a total stranger would cause emotional distress to the player as you no doubt have found out.

Coming back then to the "artistic Integrity" comment, can you not now see why it provoked such a response?
We just had our emotionally invested principal actor act in ways and make decisions in ways we would not have, nor are we given the option to win and be rewarded for playing a certain path that previously in both ME1 & 2, still rewarded the player for making a choice of either path.

To be told that this is "art".

[Kezzup]

crimzontearz wrote...

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

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

Cool story bro.

got the same answer when I said I was not going to buy DA2 because of the lack of NG+.....you do not see a DA2 icon under my name do you?

I'm not saying you're lying or anything. I'm just saying that if you're not buying the game, that's cool. Just don't expect BioWare to bend over backwards and go out of their way to try and please every single person who plays the game.

[Dean_the_Young]

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

So is the janitor. You aren't exactly establishing an equivalence in their crimes here.

now named the worst firm in America.

By the Consumerist,... in an online polling of 250,000 votes on a bracket-championship that put EA over a corporation which has been certainly involved if not actively complicit in one of the worst economic disasters in generations.

Are you seriously attempting to use The Golden Poo Award as some sort of stastically credible, objective evaluation on the quality of a company?

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.

Oy vey.

EA is multi-billion, but they don't pour all those billions into Bioware. Even you should be more aware than that. Likewise, even before EA Bioware did have an advertising presence: it did do the media tours, and it did have press events. Bioware has never been a company that relied on good word of mouth and strong reputation alone.

I've provided sources to you before and you disregard them so I'm not going to bother again.

You didn't, actually.

You claimed supporting previous claims was an unreasonable burden of proof, and defended the challenge to provide evidence by saying that it was was too plausible to dismiss.

EA's own financial documentation shows it spent nearly a billion dollars on marketing alone.

This was an interesting claim you haven't made or supported before, so I did a few quick google searches to try and support it. I failed.

The closest that came was a link from cinemablend to this, but the marketting budget of not even 750 million for the entire company falls under you claim by a a good quarter of what you claimed. It's also dwarfed by the much larger costs of Development and Costs of Goods Sold (rounding to 1.15 and 1.5 billion respectively).

That's more than most games make in total revenue.

And? That number applies to EA and all its subsidiaries, and EA also produces a large number of games. It's one of the biggest video game corporations around, and so of course you'd gradually see the aggregate costs rise more than the revenue of any one product.

This is an argument that only condemns if you ignore scale. I can't tell if you deliberatly tried to imply that EA spent a billion dollars on ME3 advertising alone, though it certainly came off as it, but you're definitely exagerating the costs without giving credit to any other factors or contexts that would give a sense of the situation.

[Binary_Helix 1]

LinksOcarina wrote...

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. 

EA's growth is based on acquisition so spending big is their business model. With their size and access to credit they can.

However buying hype for Madden or some shooter might work it doesn't really work for RPGs. Bioware sales are flat.

That very same consumer poll you disparage named Bank of America as the worst in 2011 and nearly again in 2012. Just because you don't like the results of a fair poll doesn't invalidate it. Moreover EA is widely regarded as a bad company by gamers and their business practices have drawn criticism in the past so the dubious title is deserved like it or not.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 26 novembre 2012 - 01:53 .

[crimzontearz]

JamesFaith wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

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

But yes, you are asking for change. You are asking for changing purposed uncertainty and just glimpse of hope in undeniable fact.

Still change.

please do not give me that Eraclitos Panta Rei BULL****. I am asking for clarification not an utter rewrite....seriously I hope Bioware gets bit in the butt for this attitude

[crimzontearz]

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

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

Cool story bro.

got the same answer when I said I was not going to buy DA2 because of the lack of NG+.....you do not see a DA2 icon under my name do you?

I'm not saying you're lying or anything. I'm just saying that if you're not buying the game, that's cool. Just don't expect BioWare to bend over backwards and go out of their way to try and please every single person who plays the game.

are you dense? ever seen in the external polls the sheer number of people who wanted that?

[Xellith]

JamesFaith wrote...

Xellith wrote...

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?

This is how creative team works - there is place for discussion and demands for change, because their piece, in this case videogame, is still in creation process.

I knew it from personal experience, because I was part of translational team once. Every member could made notes about some aspects, everyone was open to discussion, but there were also team leader, who had last word, because there must be someone who made final decision, where discussion lasted too long and no one was willing to stepped back.

So when my boss tell me, that he wanted change something in translation, or when anthologist have exceptions to my story, I have no problem with it, because this is still part of creative process. Problem is when someone outside of this process demanding change - at this moment is just MY choice to accept it or not and this is artistic integrity. 

The ending specifically was done without the rest of the team.  Casey and Mac supposedly locked themselves in a room and came up with whatever it is they came up with.  Where was the creative process then?  Where was the peer review and bouncing of ideas?

If anything, those asking for a change of the ending are asking for the ending to be put through the proper creative process.  Not to mention many of these changes are people asking for what was promised in the first place.  Such as the prescence of the rachni having HUGE consequences.

Modifié par Xellith, 26 novembre 2012 - 01:58 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xellith wrote...

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?

In most organizations there are opportunities for concerns and disputes to be raised, and mechanisms to resolve them. Though the do admit to working for a corporation, plenty of Bioware members from various levels of leadership have mentioned these fabled 'meetings' in which progress is checked, suggestions are raised, and decisions are made. None have ever alleged that concerns are forbidden from being raised, though that could be the evil corporate influence forbidding them from confessing to us.

Once a decision is made it's probably off the table, but that's standard for most organizations.

[Knubbsal]

I do believe they're interested in hearing the fans. And whatever they're making, I hope they're not going to rush things.

This whole franchise gets hyped too much by us as fans. When content comes out it's already old since we've been talking about the leaks for a year already.

That makes it hard for BioWare to surprise us with anything. Maybe we would have gotten a conventional end fight in ME3 if they didn't feel the need to do something extraordinary. We want special, but not too special. We're always disappointed since not everything made it into the game (*cough*Vega romance*cough*).

So yeah... maybe don't involve us too much

[Kezzup]

crimzontearz wrote...

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

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

Cool story bro.

got the same answer when I said I was not going to buy DA2 because of the lack of NG+.....you do not see a DA2 icon under my name do you?

I'm not saying you're lying or anything. I'm just saying that if you're not buying the game, that's cool. Just don't expect BioWare to bend over backwards and go out of their way to try and please every single person who plays the game.

are you dense? ever seen in the external polls the sheer number of people who wanted that?

But again, even the fact that a lot of people want something DOES NOT mean that BioWare has to put it in. There are LOTS of examples in media of writers trying really really hard to please fans, but because of that the actual quality of the series/movie/wahtever tanked and people stopped caring. Sometimes you want something, but when you get it, you realize "man, that actually wasn't that great of an idea".

[crimzontearz]

^^ which, given the reaction in this case, is not what happened because people did not get what they wanted and now they just stopped playing....like me.

[Jere85]

Watch the pyramids please

[crimzontearz]

Jere85 wrote...

Watch the pyramids please

I did

[Reth Shepherd]

Kezzup wrote...But again, even the fact that a lot of people want something DOES NOT mean that BioWare has to put it in. There are LOTS of examples in media of writers trying really really hard to please fans, but because of that the actual quality of the series/movie/wahtever tanked and people stopped caring. Sometimes you want something, but when you get it, you realize "man, that actually wasn't that great of an idea".

And then again, sometimes the author makes a completely pants-on-head-stupid decision and only realizes it after the fact. At that point they have to decide what they're going to do and how badly  this bad decision is going to hurt them. Example: Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes because he was sick of writing the stories. He was forced to resurrect the popular character after fan/customer backlash lead to people refusing to buy his other books. Bioware made a bad decision, and it looks as though they're going to stick with it. It's going to be interesting seeing what happens with their next release.

[LinksOcarina]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

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. 

EA's growth is based on acquisition so spending big is their business model. With their size and access to credit they can.

However buying hype for Madden or some shooter might work it doesn't really work for RPGs. Bioware sales are flat.

That very same consumer poll you disparage named Bank of America as the worst in 2011 and nearly again in 2012. Just because you don't like the results of a fair poll doesn't invalidate it. Moreover EA is widely regarded as a bad company by games and their business practices have drawn critcism in the past so the dubious title is deserved.

Nope. It's not. It really is not deserved criticism anymore when people give it a false equivalancy over actions made under a previous CEO.  In fact, I have to ask, since EA has stated numerous times that their business strategy at the moment is "gaming as a service", and has done what they could to reinforce that ideal, how is spending tons of money  a problem then? At worst its just bad business practice by EA as a whole because they spend more than they take in.

Although last year they still turned a profit but lost income overall, meaning they were in the black for the year but in the red overall. Plus you got to keep in mind that EA is spending a lot of money on other game studios, consumer research, salaries, and next generation technology so that they can stay competitive. Does that justify spending more at all? I think its bad business and they need to cut back a bit, but at the same time they are not under water like THQ and other companies are either, nor will they be any time soon. 

And that online poll is bull**** every year, so it still is irrelevent. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 26 novembre 2012 - 02:12 .

[Kezzup]

crimzontearz wrote...

^^ which, given the reaction in this case, is not what happened because people did not get what they wanted and now they just stopped playing....like me.

But it is what COULD happen if people keep pushing the fact that BioWare should bow to their every whim. Like the people who want BioWare to completely re-do the ending - it's never going to happen, but people act like it SHOULD happen because it's what they want.

Franchises very rarely go exactly the way people want - the important thing is to accept the writers' decisions, whether you like said decisions or not, and hope for a GOOD product, not a product that comes out exactly the way you want it to.

Not buying the game is fine. Not buying the game because you disagree with BioWare's choices is fine. But acting like BioWare HAS to listen to your ideas is not.

[crimzontearz]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

Kezzup wrote...But again, even the fact that a lot of people want something DOES NOT mean that BioWare has to put it in. There are LOTS of examples in media of writers trying really really hard to please fans, but because of that the actual quality of the series/movie/wahtever tanked and people stopped caring. Sometimes you want something, but when you get it, you realize "man, that actually wasn't that great of an idea".

And then again, sometimes the author makes a completely pants-on-head-stupid decision and only realizes it after the fact. At that point they have to decide what they're going to do and how badly  this bad decision is going to hurt them. Example: Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes because he was sick of writing the stories. He was forced to resurrect the popular character after fan/customer backlash lead to people refusing to buy his other books. Bioware made a bad decision, and it looks as though they're going to stick with it. It's going to be interesting seeing what happens with their next release.

second hand market

[Dean_the_Young]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

That very same consumer poll you disparage named Bank of America as the worst in 2011 and nearly again in 2012. Just because you don't like the results of a fair poll doesn't invalidate it.

Er, what?

It's still an unfair poll. It's a binary bracket setup based upon voluntary participation from the internet-interested. Don't you know anything about polling methodology?

Moreover EA is widely regarded as a bad company by gamers and their business practices have drawn criticism in the past so the dubious title is deserved like it or not.

'Worst' is a title that can only be deserved by one who meets a criteria that no one else does. What has EA done that exceeds the e-coli outbreak this year that actually killed someone? Or the various Wall Street hijinks that spurred the Occupy movement? Or the health care companies that were denying coverage? Or the robosigning home foreclosures?

Hell, worse than cigarette companies? Or the jewelry companies that partake in blood diamonds?

[JamesFaith]

Xellith wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Xellith wrote...

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?

This is how creative team works - there is place for discussion and demands for change, because their piece, in this case videogame, is still in creation process.

I knew it from personal experience, because I was part of translational team once. Every member could made notes about some aspects, everyone was open to discussion, but there were also team leader, who had last word, because there must be someone who made final decision, where discussion lasted too long and no one was willing to stepped back.

So when my boss tell me, that he wanted change something in translation, or when anthologist have exceptions to my story, I have no problem with it, because this is still part of creative process. Problem is when someone outside of this process demanding change - at this moment is just MY choice to accept it or not and this is artistic integrity. 

The ending specifically was done without the rest of the team.  Casey and Mac supposedly locked themselves in a room and came up with whatever it is they came up with.  Where was the creative process then?  Where was the peer review and bouncing of ideas?

If anything, those asking for a change of the ending are asking for the ending to be put through the proper creative process.

Two main scenarists with supervisor powers finished main plot alone.

This is still proper process because there is no RULE that everyone must see and annotate everything. They are distributing work, they are judging work, intervention of others to their work is their choice.  When I wrote a story for anthology, I mostly got opportunity to comment inner illustrations of my work, but main cover can be created completely without me, because this is right of anthologist.

Every team had its chain of command and leader workers have more rights then others. You have right to not like result and think it is wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean that process itself was wrong.

[Kezzup]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

Kezzup wrote...But again, even the fact that a lot of people want something DOES NOT mean that BioWare has to put it in. There are LOTS of examples in media of writers trying really really hard to please fans, but because of that the actual quality of the series/movie/wahtever tanked and people stopped caring. Sometimes you want something, but when you get it, you realize "man, that actually wasn't that great of an idea".

And then again, sometimes the author makes a completely pants-on-head-stupid decision and only realizes it after the fact. At that point they have to decide what they're going to do and how badly  this bad decision is going to hurt them. Example: Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes because he was sick of writing the stories. He was forced to resurrect the popular character after fan/customer backlash lead to people refusing to buy his other books. Bioware made a bad decision, and it looks as though they're going to stick with it. It's going to be interesting seeing what happens with their next release.

I realize that does happen sometimes, and I'm not saying fans should never speak out their opinions because it's what the author wanted to do. Sherlock Holmes was a lucky case - how many franchises have been brought back from the dead/remade/rebooted due to popular demand, but ended up sucking way harder than the original?