325 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

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.  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.

When you're only form of proof of this is a possible revelation made by Patrick Weekes on an online forum, the question of it being accurate has to come up. If this did happen, then you have a point.

Since we don't know if this did happen or not (and may never know until someone breaks their silence) then this being used as a bit of eveidence to anything, for or against, is circumstantial. 

And the Rachni did have a consequence. Was it huge? No. But it was still present and valid, choosing them over a former teammate, and depending on previous decisions depends on the eventual outcome of their respected fates. Imagine if you didn't save the Rachni in Mass Effect one and Grunt is not loyal in Mass Effect 2.

You lose both in the end if you are not careful. Is that not a consequence? Or is it the fact that its not a major consequence that is the sticking point?

But in that same vein, isen't saying something will have a "huge" consequence just PR hype to begin with?  If so, then the word huge is a misnomer because it is always an exagerrated adjective. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 26 novembre 2012 - 02:10 .

[crimzontearz]

Kezzup wrote...

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?

not our situation....at all

[Dean_the_Young]

Xellith wrote...

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?

IIRC, that post was the one claiming to be from a dev, right? The one which gave Casey or Mac grudging praise as cerebral?

If it was that one, the post was outright denied by the dev it claimed to be from.

Edit: Yeah, that was the Patrick one.

It won't stop the people who believe it was covered up for the evil corporate conspiracy,  but-

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

I was here throughout the aftermath, and I can confidently tell you that people weren't asking for the proper creative processes. They wanted changes, not processes.

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.

Define 'huge'. 100 is more than most fleets you can recruit, after all, and the difference between the Rachni Queen and Breeder Queen is a big difference for the fate of the Rachni.

Kidding aside, alot of the promises that were given were heavily subjective in nature, and should have been recognized as such at the time. You can not be given a guarantee on a subjective measure. Likewise, some things that were interpreted as promises were not, or promised different things than they were interpreted as promissing.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 26 novembre 2012 - 02:23 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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

Links in the chain form the whole. Just because someone occupies a low rung in the totem pole doesn't excuse everything.

Dean_the_Young wrote...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?

Bank of America was named the worst in 2011 and nearly again in 2012. However EA won fair this year so come to terms already. It's not like they've never been accused of abusive practices or unethical conduct before either.

Dean_the_Young wrote...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.

Debateable. Considering the massive resources spent on The Old Republic one of the most expensive games ever made EA has contributed a lot to Bioware. EA's own CEO quit his job, became boss of Bioware's private equity holding company, which he then sold to EA before leaving again to be back in charge of EA. Strange but Bioware must have been a desirable asset.

Dean_the_Young wrote...You didn't, actually.

I did.

Dean_the_Young wrote...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).

I don't even understand what you're attempting to convey here. Could you reiterate please? I provided that information in the llnk I gave you originally. If you had bothered to read it or pay attention you wouldn't have missed it.

Dean_the_Young wrote...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.

Nobody knows exactly how and where EA divides it's pot of cash but ME3 was their biggest release of the year. They had some big sales expectations considering Skyrim matched COD sales and sold over 12 million units and is still full price today.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 26 novembre 2012 - 04:26 .

[Kezzup]

crimzontearz wrote...

Kezzup wrote...

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?

not our situation....at all

You know, maybe you ARE right. I personally think you're wrong, but maybe if BioWare completely redid the ending, it WOULd fix everything and we'd all be happy (for now at least).

But one again, acting like BioWare is made up of money-loving devils who don't care about our opinions just because they don't do everything the community wants is just dumb.

The thing is we, as consumers, are kind of dumb. Most of us have very little idea what the creative process behind making a game like Mass Effect is. It's kind of like why I don't write fanfiction - you don't have any idea what's going on in the writers' heads, or how they came to the decisions they did. Yes, sometimes the fans ARE right and the person behind the idea should take a serious look at the choices they made. But it's obvious that BioWaare is satisfied with what they've done, so instead of harping on them to make changes they don't want to, we should instead look towards what they might give us in the future.

[Xellith]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rachni stuff

I saved the Rachni in the first game, and there was a little tease about them in Mass Effect 2.
How big of a repercussion do choices like that have in this game? Will
get to play a mission that someone who killed the Rachni wouldn’t get?

The thing I will say about Mass Effect 3 is that the choices you’ve made previously, and the differences that those choices represent, are much bigger than they’ve been in the past. There are certain missions that are simply not available at all because of something you’ve done in the past. Those are usually on a smaller scale.  Is Conrad Verner alive or dead? [The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.

Make of that what you will.

Modifié par Xellith, 26 novembre 2012 - 02:24 .

[Reth Shepherd]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Define 'huge'. 100 is more than most fleets you can recruit, after all, and the difference between the Rachni Queen and Breeder Queen is a big difference for the fate of the Rachni.

Kidding aside, alot of the promises that were given were heavily subjective in nature, and should have been recognized as such at the time. You can not be given a guarantee on a subjective measure. Likewise, some things that were interpreted as promises were not, or promised different things than they were interpreted as promissing.

“[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.”

Dunno about you, but I didn't see any whatsoever to do with the Rachni in the final battle, unless you count the Reaperized Rachni, who are there no matter what choice you make.

“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say any more than that…”

"It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.”

I don't see ANY way to interpret these statements as anything but all-out lies when you compare them to what was actually delivered. Particularly as the former statement was made only a week before release, which means they KNEW what was actually ingame. So while the latter statement could be taken as a 'we ran out of time and had to chop the original content', the former is just plain incorrect.

Here is a list of pre-release statements if you want to refresh your memory. Now I think all of us know to take hype with a grain of salt, but when we can't even take direct statements about what is and isn't in the game, what's left? Are they allowed to lie with impunity? Are we to roll over and be good little money-providers? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...ain't happening.

[crimzontearz]

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Kezzup wrote...

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?

not our situation....at all

You know, maybe you ARE right. I personally think you're wrong, but maybe if BioWare completely redid the ending, it WOULd fix everything and we'd all be happy (for now at least).

But one again, acting like BioWare is made up of money-loving devils who don't care about our opinions just because they don't do everything the community wants is just dumb.

The thing is we, as consumers, are kind of dumb. Most of us have very little idea what the creative process behind making a game like Mass Effect is. It's kind of like why I don't write fanfiction - you don't have any idea what's going on in the writers' heads, or how they came to the decisions they did. Yes, sometimes the fans ARE right and the person behind the idea should take a serious look at the choices they made. But it's obvious that BioWaare is satisfied with what they've done, so instead of harping on them to make changes they don't want to, we should instead look towards what they might give us in the future.

dude...reading comprehension issues?

I ONLY want a CLARIFICATION 

I do not want a whole mulligan on the endings I want a straight answer from the ending of the game I spent 60$ of perfectly good money and the story of which was marketed to me as MY STORY that does not involve headcanon. Failing that I am gojng to hit them and thus their owners, EA, where it counts....the wallet

Modifié par crimzontearz, 26 novembre 2012 - 02:31 .

[spirosz]

Xellith wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rachni stuff

I saved the Rachni in the first game, and there was a little tease about them in Mass Effect 2.
How big of a repercussion do choices like that have in this game? Will
get to play a mission that someone who killed the Rachni wouldn’t get?

The thing I will say about Mass Effect 3 is that the choices you’ve made previously, and the differences that those choices represent, are much bigger than they’ve been in the past. There are certain missions that are simply not available at all because of something you’ve done in the past. Those are usually on a smaller scale.  Is Conrad Verner alive or dead? [The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.

Make of that what you will.

I always lol @ that.  

[Reth Shepherd]

Kezzup wrote...

The thing is we, as consumers, are kind of dumb. Most of us have very little idea what the creative process behind making a game like Mass Effect is. It's kind of like why I don't write fanfiction - you don't have any idea what's going on in the writers' heads, or how they came to the decisions they did. Yes, sometimes the fans ARE right and the person behind the idea should take a serious look at the choices they made. But it's obvious that BioWaare is satisfied with what they've done, so instead of harping on them to make changes they don't want to, we should instead look towards what they might give us in the future.

Mass Effect: Deception. Mass Effect 3. Dragon Age 2. That Star Wars MMO. The EC. That's just off the top of my head. What they might give us in the future isn't looking good, based off of what they've been giving us in the present.

Which reminds me, does anyone have any suggestions for getting my credit card info scrubbed from EA's systems? I COULD just close my account, but I'm fairly sure that my info will still remain, which means it'll be still be there the next time there's a data breach.

[FaWa]

I'm sorry but every website that gave DA2/ME3 a 9 are jokes. They lost all their credibility the second they did that. In the case of IGN, they never had any so w/e.

[Kezzup]

crimzontearz wrote...

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Kezzup wrote...

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?

not our situation....at all

You know, maybe you ARE right. I personally think you're wrong, but maybe if BioWare completely redid the ending, it WOULd fix everything and we'd all be happy (for now at least).

But one again, acting like BioWare is made up of money-loving devils who don't care about our opinions just because they don't do everything the community wants is just dumb.

The thing is we, as consumers, are kind of dumb. Most of us have very little idea what the creative process behind making a game like Mass Effect is. It's kind of like why I don't write fanfiction - you don't have any idea what's going on in the writers' heads, or how they came to the decisions they did. Yes, sometimes the fans ARE right and the person behind the idea should take a serious look at the choices they made. But it's obvious that BioWaare is satisfied with what they've done, so instead of harping on them to make changes they don't want to, we should instead look towards what they might give us in the future.

dude...reading comprehension issues?

I ONLY want a CLARIFICATION 

I do not want a whole mulligan on the endings I want a straight answer from the ending of the game I spent 60$ of perfectly good money and the story of which was marketed to me as MY STORY that does not involve headcanon. Failing that I am gojng to hit them and thus their owners, EA, where it counts....the wallet

But BioWare is not ENTITLED to give you an answer. Sure, you did pay money for the game, and that means they should attempt to give you your money's worth. It doesn't mean they have to go out of their way to answer every little thing people want to be answered in the game, because they WANT the story to be ambiguous. Take Inception, for example, a movie that ends ambiguously. It's obvious the ambiguity was intended, so anyone asking Christopher Nolan to add in a new scene showing whether the top fell over or not is laughable.

And I feel like you're using the whole MY STORY thing as an excuse for why BioWare should cater to your every whim. Yes, Mass Effect is advertised as a game where you're decisions affect the outcome. It doesn't mean that you can control every little thing about the game you're playing, and it never did. For example, if it were truly my story, I wouldn't have Miranda in the story at all (I reeeeeally hate her, but that's another topic). But you don't see me begging BioWare to give me the option to take her out of the story, because something like that just isn't feasible.

Once again, you don't want to pay more money to BioWare? Fine. Don't. But stop acting like BioWare owes you something at this point.

[Kezzup]

FaWa wrote...

I'm sorry but every website that gave DA2/ME3 a 9 are jokes. They lost all their credibility the second they did that. In the case of IGN, they never had any so w/e.

How DARE someone not completely agree with my opinion, something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with them.

[crimzontearz]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

Reth Shepherd wrote...
“[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.”

Dunno about you, but I didn't see any whatsoever to do with the Rachni in the final battle, unless you count the Reaperized Rachni, who are there no matter what choice you make.

“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say any more than that…”

"It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.”

I don't see ANY way to interpret these statements as anything but all-out lies when you compare them to what was actually delivered. Particularly as the former statement was made only a week before release, which means they KNEW what was actually ingame. So while the latter statement could be taken as a 'we ran out of time and had to chop the original content', the former is just plain incorrect.

Here is a list of pre-release statements if you want to refresh your memory. Now I think all of us know to take hype with a grain of salt, but when we can't even take direct statements about what is and isn't in the game, what's left? Are they allowed to lie with impunity? Are we to roll over and be good little money-providers? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...ain't happening.

Out of curiosity, did you believe those statements, or all of the statements that you linked to?

honestly....like an idiot I believed most of them

[Reth Shepherd]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

Reth Shepherd wrote...
“[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.”

Dunno about you, but I didn't see any whatsoever to do with the Rachni in the final battle, unless you count the Reaperized Rachni, who are there no matter what choice you make.

“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say any more than that…”

"It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.”

I don't see ANY way to interpret these statements as anything but all-out lies when you compare them to what was actually delivered. Particularly as the former statement was made only a week before release, which means they KNEW what was actually ingame. So while the latter statement could be taken as a 'we ran out of time and had to chop the original content', the former is just plain incorrect.

Here is a list of pre-release statements if you want to refresh your memory. Now I think all of us know to take hype with a grain of salt, but when we can't even take direct statements about what is and isn't in the game, what's left? Are they allowed to lie with impunity? Are we to roll over and be good little money-providers? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...ain't happening.

Out of curiosity, did you believe those statements, or all of the statements that you linked to?

To be perfectly honest, I was unaware of those statements until well after I played the game. Let's just say that discovering this list didn't improve my opinion of the company.

[JamesFaith]

Xellith wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rachni stuff

I saved the Rachni in the first game, and there was a little tease about them in Mass Effect 2.
How big of a repercussion do choices like that have in this game? Will
get to play a mission that someone who killed the Rachni wouldn’t get?

The thing I will say about Mass Effect 3 is that the choices you’ve made previously, and the differences that those choices represent, are much bigger than they’ve been in the past. There are certain missions that are simply not available at all because of something you’ve done in the past. Those are usually on a smaller scale.  Is Conrad Verner alive or dead? [The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.

Make of that what you will.

OK, lets play devil advocate.

The thing I will say about Mass Effect 3 is that the choices you’ve made previously, and the differences that those choices represent, are much bigger than they’ve been in the past.

- correct, some choices had such effect (Genophage, Peace between quarians and geths). I don't see here any mention that ALL choices would have such big impact. Also there is no direct reference to Rachni, he spoke generally.

There are certain missions that are simply not available at all because of something you’ve done in the past. Those are usually on a smaller scale.  Is Conrad Verner alive or dead?

- correct again, Conrad Verner mission fitted to this. And again no direct reference to Rachni and vague term certain missions, not all missions. 

[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3.

- if part in brackets was part of original text, it is really nice work with words. There is presence, not saving queen has huge consequences. And result of this presence was one whole mission with Arralakh company.

Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.

- no direct quote about their appearance in this battle. And although many fans don't like war asset system and doesn't count it as consequences, in eyes of member of creative team positive/negative Warr Asset outcome based on decision in ME1 would have such consequences in ending battle.

I don't see here any direct lie, just true said in way which is offering more fantastic interpetation. Normal PR.

[spirosz]

JamesFaith wrote...

[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3.

- if part in brackets was part of original text, it is really nice work with words. There is presence, not saving queen has huge consequences. And result of this presence was one whole mission with Arralakh company.

What's the huge consequence of not saving the queen? 

[crimzontearz]

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Kezzup wrote...

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?

not our situation....at all

You know, maybe you ARE right. I personally think you're wrong, but maybe if BioWare completely redid the ending, it WOULd fix everything and we'd all be happy (for now at least).

But one again, acting like BioWare is made up of money-loving devils who don't care about our opinions just because they don't do everything the community wants is just dumb.

The thing is we, as consumers, are kind of dumb. Most of us have very little idea what the creative process behind making a game like Mass Effect is. It's kind of like why I don't write fanfiction - you don't have any idea what's going on in the writers' heads, or how they came to the decisions they did. Yes, sometimes the fans ARE right and the person behind the idea should take a serious look at the choices they made. But it's obvious that BioWaare is satisfied with what they've done, so instead of harping on them to make changes they don't want to, we should instead look towards what they might give us in the future.

dude...reading comprehension issues?

I ONLY want a CLARIFICATION 

I do not want a whole mulligan on the endings I want a straight answer from the ending of the game I spent 60$ of perfectly good money and the story of which was marketed to me as MY STORY that does not involve headcanon. Failing that I am gojng to hit them and thus their owners, EA, where it counts....the wallet

But BioWare is not ENTITLED to give you an answer. Sure, you did pay money for the game, and that means they should attempt to give you your money's worth. It doesn't mean they have to go out of their way to answer every little thing people want to be answered in the game, because they WANT the story to be ambiguous. Take Inception, for example, a movie that ends ambiguously. It's obvious the ambiguity was intended, so anyone asking Christopher Nolan to add in a new scene showing whether the top fell over or not is laughable.

And I feel like you're using the whole MY STORY thing as an excuse for why BioWare should cater to your every whim. Yes, Mass Effect is advertised as a game where you're decisions affect the outcome. It doesn't mean that you can control every little thing about the game you're playing, and it never did. For example, if it were truly my story, I wouldn't have Miranda in the story at all (I reeeeeally hate her, but that's another topic). But you don't see me begging BioWare to give me the option to take her out of the story, because something like that just isn't feasible.

Once again, you don't want to pay more money to BioWare? Fine. Don't. But stop acting like BioWare owes you something at this point.

lol Oh please Nolan does not answer that question because he hints in the movie that that is not his totem but good try. And good try on generalizing on the desires of fans in the broad sense which lead to the largest backlash in gaming history and the minute details each of them wants. Quit white knighting before people start thinking you are on EA's payroll (which ks less uncommon than you think) . as for me? I will keep believing bioware does owe me at least a straight answer if they want my money in the future....as well as the money of any and all people I will be able to stray away fro  the series in the future

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

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

Links in the chain form the whole. Just because someone occupies a low rung in the totem pole doesn't excuse everything. [/quote]Sure, but now you've established an impossible standard because you've invalidated anything anyone from the company might say on the basis of guilt by association. Nothing that anyone with a buisness relationship to Bioware says is valid if it disagrees with you. Meanwhile you treated as credible an alleged whistleblower who claimed he was a professional troll while releasing a list virtually tailor-made to agree with an anti-EA agenda, as accounted for in a blog post so biased that it equated an entire corporation's marketting budget for all its products with paying for online trolling.

Can you not see how fallicious this is?

[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...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?
[/quote]

Bank of America was named the worst in 2011 and nearly again in 2012. However EA won fair this year so come to terms already. It's not like they've never been accused of abusive practices or unethical conduct before either. [/quote]...you do, don't you?

You honestly think it's a serious poll.


[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...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.
[/quote]

Debateable.[/quote]Not debatable. EA doesn't pour all its money through Bioware, and before EA Bioware did engage in advertising.
[quote]
Considering the massive resources spent on The Old Republic one of the most expensive games ever made EA has contributed a lot to Bioware. EA's own CEO quit his job, became boss  Bioware's private equity holding company, which he then sold to EA before leaving again to be back in charge of EA. Strange but Bioware must have been a desirable asset. [/quote]Duh, no ****. If it wasn't a desirable asset, EA wouldn't have bought it.

That in no way indicates or supports that EA spends all its resources on this one desirable asset, especially when it continues to have others. (EA sports, actually.)
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...You didn't, actually.
[/quote]

I did. [/quote]The only link you provided was to the cinema article for a different discussion point, and you couldn't even get the facts in that one right.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...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).
[/quote]

I don't even understand what you're attempting to convey here. Could you reiterate please? I provided that information in the llnk I gave you originally. If you had bothered to read it or pay attention you wouldn't have missed it. [/quote]1) You're failing at saying what the data actually is. (Costs of advertising.)
2) You're ignoring what else the data actually does and does not show. (Costs of advertising across the corporation, as opposed to for ME3 in particular)
3) You're not looking at data that supports the context of the argument you're trying to make. (The pre-EA marketing costs.)

You're pulling out bad numbers that don't even mean what you're implying they do. This is a Bad Argument.


[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...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.


[/quote]

Nobody knows exactly how and where EA divides it's pot of cash but ME3 was their biggest release of the year. They had somme big sales expectations considering Skyrim sold over 12 million units and is still full price to this day.

[/quote]This is another example of an irrelevant factoid that doesn't support your argument. Bethesda games have traditionally out-sold Bioware games by large margins: this is neither new nor surprising. Bioware games have expectations to meet by Bioware standards, not Bethesda standards.

In fact, this counter-argument isn't actually an argument at all. It neither contests any point of what you quoted, nor does it further any of your current or previous arguments. If anything, it counters your previous argument in which you were claiming that the billions of EA would be behind Bioware because Bioware is a desirable asset.

[spirosz]

J. Reezy wrote...

spirosz wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3.

- if part in brackets was part of original text, it is really nice work with words. There is presence, not saving queen has huge consequences. And result of this presence was one whole mission with Arralakh company.

What's the huge consequence of not saving the queen? 

Assets points I think.

Oh those. 

[Iakus]

Kezzup wrote...

But BioWare is not ENTITLED to give you an answer. Sure, you did pay money for the game, and that means they should attempt to give you your money's worth. It doesn't mean they have to go out of their way to answer every little thing people want to be answered in the game, because they WANT the story to be ambiguous. Take Inception, for example, a movie that ends ambiguously. It's obvious the ambiguity was intended, so anyone asking Christopher Nolan to add in a new scene showing whether the top fell over or not is laughable.

And I feel like you're using the whole MY STORY thing as an excuse for why BioWare should cater to your every whim. Yes, Mass Effect is advertised as a game where you're decisions affect the outcome. It doesn't mean that you can control every little thing about the game you're playing, and it never did. For example, if it were truly my story, I wouldn't have Miranda in the story at all (I reeeeeally hate her, but that's another topic). But you don't see me begging BioWare to give me the option to take her out of the story, because something like that just isn't feasible.

Once again, you don't want to pay more money to BioWare? Fine. Don't. But stop acting like BioWare owes you something at this point.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you were perfectly happy with the endings and see little to nothing wrong with them in the first place.

[Ithurael]

spirosz wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

spirosz wrote...

What's the huge consequence of not saving the queen? 

Assets points I think.

Oh those. 

HEY! Those matter!

...They Matter lots...

[JamesFaith]

Reth Shepherd wrote...
“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say any more than that…”

"It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.”

I don't see ANY way to interpret these statements as anything but all-out lies when you compare them to what was actually delivered. Particularly as the former statement was made only a week before release, which means they KNEW what was actually ingame. So while the latter statement could be taken as a 'we ran out of time and had to chop the original content', the former is just plain incorrect.

And I see it.

It can be easily interpreted that number and quality of endings aren't set in stone, that this would depend on your playthrough. And this is correct, you can get low/high Destroy end and not everytime you got all 3 options from Catalyst with low War assets.

Again it si just PR claim with more then one way of intepretation, when some are more bombastic then original meaning. Yes, it is insiious, but not all-out lie.