325 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

Previous choices having bigger carryover than in previous games? That's definitely true, and certainly the Rachni have more carry-over in ME3 than they did in ME2.  Huge consequences? A vague and subjective interpretation if there was one, but it does change the ending context of a mission and the consequences after it, something only the Genophage arc can claim. Consequence in the final battle with the Reapers? As a war asset it can determine how many of the endings you can get, even if it isn't decisive.

[Dean_the_Young]

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? 

There are no good Rachni, only the Evil Breeder Queen.

If you save her, you actually lose a good number of assets. Which, without multiplayer or completionism, could make you lose a viability level for an ending.

[JamesFaith]

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? 

Sorry, you missed the point (no offence mean by this phrase).

He didn't tied "huge consequences" with "saving queen" in this sentence. He tied it with their "presence" and didn't specify that this presence can be both result of saving queen or Reapers experiments. And result of this "presence" ïs one big mission with Grunt. LIke I said, it is nice work with words.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 26 novembre 2012 - 02:59 .

[Iakus]

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.

Those who do not learn from history...

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

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.

I wasn't perfectly happy with the endings and saw quite a bit wrong with the entire franchise and each of the games, and I can mostly agree with it.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...


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?

So what if it draws the internet based? Should we have polls asking senior citizens their opinion on EA now? LOL, no.

Dean_the_Young wrote...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?

Why is your opinion of what counts as bad any more valid than someone elses? Besides EA has engaed in labor abuses.

[Kezzup]

crimzontearz wrote...
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

I am not trying to white knight for EA or BioWare at all. I'm not ALWAYS on their side, I just happen to be in this particular arguement. EA and BioWare have screwed up a lot, believe me. The statements made prior to the game's release people are discussing in this very thread are examples of this. I personally HATED the ending to ME3 (it's one of my Top 3 worst endings to anything ever) and am less excited for ME4 then I would have been if ME3 had ended more satisfyingly.

I'm just saying that fans need to realize that there's a fine line between giving legitamite criticisms and expecting everything to be handed to you exactly the way you want. It's like ordering something at a fast food restaurant. If they completely screw up your order, then yes, you have more of a right to complain and try and get things sorted out. But what if it's just one little, minor thing that makes the meal just a little worse? Most people would be dissatisfied, but would ultimately shrug it off and move on with their day. It's a similar thing here. You keep bringing up things that the fans are "in the majority about", but there are a LOT of things a good portion of the fans want. Would all of them turn out well? Maaaaaybe, but it's a very low chance. Plus, how exactly do we determine the "majority"? Sure, there are polls here and whatnot, but an idea that's loved in one place could be shot down immediately somewhere else (ESPECIALLY on the Internet).

If you believe BioWare owes you a straight answer for your one particular thing, be prepared to hold onto your money. It's not coming.

[Kezzup]

iakus wrote...

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.

Soooo wrong. As I stated in my last post (which was made after your post, so that isn't meant as an attack or anything), I hated the ending to ME3 just as much as anyone else. It was confusing, out of place and overall just underwhelming. However, with the Extended Cut and statements made by the writers, it's clear BioWare is where they want with the endings and aren't going to change much or even anything from this point on. Harping on mistakes that aren't going to get fixed isn't getting anyone anywhere, so I'm just trying to focus on the future and not dwell on what's said and done.

[crimzontearz]

Kezzup wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
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

I am not trying to white knight for EA or BioWare at all. I'm not ALWAYS on their side, I just happen to be in this particular arguement. EA and BioWare have screwed up a lot, believe me. The statements made prior to the game's release people are discussing in this very thread are examples of this. I personally HATED the ending to ME3 (it's one of my Top 3 worst endings to anything ever) and am less excited for ME4 then I would have been if ME3 had ended more satisfyingly.

I'm just saying that fans need to realize that there's a fine line between giving legitamite criticisms and expecting everything to be handed to you exactly the way you want. It's like ordering something at a fast food restaurant. If they completely screw up your order, then yes, you have more of a right to complain and try and get things sorted out. But what if it's just one little, minor thing that makes the meal just a little worse? Most people would be dissatisfied, but would ultimately shrug it off and move on with their day. It's a similar thing here. You keep bringing up things that the fans are "in the majority about", but there are a LOT of things a good portion of the fans want. Would all of them turn out well? Maaaaaybe, but it's a very low chance. Plus, how exactly do we determine the "majority"? Sure, there are polls here and whatnot, but an idea that's loved in one place could be shot down immediately somewhere else (ESPECIALLY on the Internet).

If you believe BioWare owes you a straight answer for your one particular thing, be prepared to hold onto your money. It's not coming.

I have already done it...I will do it again

[Kezzup]

iakus wrote...

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.

Those who do not learn from history...

I'm not saying BioWare shouldn't learn from what they did wrong. I'm just saying we, as consumers, are helping no one by saying "Oh, you should have done THIS specific thing with the ending" because THAT'S already over. The post I replied to which started this whole conversation was one asking for a very specific detail on the ending, something which answering wouldn't have done much of anything for ME4 or anything else BioWare is working on.

[Archonsg]

spirosz wrote...

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. 

And made irrelevant with multi-player
I have about 20,000 N7 asset points from MP that more or less says "You don't have to do any side missions for the *best ending options *."

[Dean_the_Young]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...


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?

So what if it draws the internet based? Should we have polls asking senior citizens their opinion on EA now? LOL, no.

Er, yes. If you want to identify the worst corporation in America, Senior Citizens who not only have a good deal of experience with corporations but also are victims to some of the most flagrant and harmful corporate abuses would be an excellent population pool for a poll.

Limiting it to a small group of aware, interested, and often young people on the internet of a particular niche community is exactly why the poll is laughable, even before you get into how voting for the 'worst' company is an appeal to a majority argument, not an objective evaluation.

Why is your opinion of what counts as bad any more valid than someone elses?

Because common morality of civilization held by most people in the Anglosphere holds that certain crimes are worse than others, and that crimes leading to death and wrongful impoverishment are far more serious than poor luxury goods and bad PR.

Besides EA has engaed in labor abuses.

Are these labor abuses as serious as killing people, driving them out of their homes, or physically injuring them?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 26 novembre 2012 - 03:18 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Archonsg wrote...

spirosz wrote...

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. 

And made irrelevant with multi-player
I have about 20,000 N7 asset points from MP that more or less says "You don't have to do any side missions for the *best ending options *."

Congratulations, then: your choices have had an impact on the story.

[Iakus]

Kezzup wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

Those who do not learn from history...

I'm not saying BioWare shouldn't learn from what they did wrong. I'm just saying we, as consumers, are helping no one by saying "Oh, you should have done THIS specific thing with the ending" because THAT'S already over. The post I replied to which started this whole conversation was one asking for a very specific detail on the ending, something which answering wouldn't have done much of anything for ME4 or anything else BioWare is working on.

I'm saying we should learn from history.  Don't trust words.  Trust actions.  And I've seen precious little action lately that I find encouraging.

[Reth Shepherd]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Are these labor abuses as serious as killing people, driving them out of their homes, or physically injuring them?

Our adventures with Electronic Arts began less than a year ago. The small game studio that my partner worked for collapsed as a result of foul play on the part of a big publisher -- another common story. Electronic Arts offered a job, the salary was right and the benefits were good, so my SO took it. I remember that they asked him in one of the interviews: "how do you feel about working long hours?" It's just a part of the game industry -- few studios can avoid a crunch as deadlines loom, so we thought nothing of it. When asked for specifics about what "working long hours" meant, the interviewers coughed and glossed on to the next question; now we know why.

Within weeks production had accelerated into a 'mild' crunch: eight hours six days a week. Not bad. Months remained until any real crunch would start, and the team was told that this "pre-crunch" was to prevent a big crunch toward the end; at this point any other need for a crunch seemed unlikely, as the project was dead on schedule. I don't know how many of the developers bought EA's explanation for the extended hours; we were new and naive so we did. The producers even set a deadline; they gave a specific date for the end of the crunch, which was still months away from the title's shipping date, so it seemed safe. That date came and went. And went, and went. When the next news came it was not about a reprieve; it was another acceleration: twelve hours six days a week, 9am to 10pm.

Weeks passed. Again the producers had given a termination date on this crunch that again they failed. Throughout this period the project remained on schedule. The long hours started to take its toll on the team; people grew irritable and some started to get ill. People dropped out in droves for a couple of days at a time, but then the team seemed to reach equilibrium again and they plowed ahead. The managers stopped even talking about a day when the hours would go back to normal.

Now, it seems, is the "real" crunch, the one that the producers of this title so wisely prepared their team for by running them into the ground ahead of time. The current mandatory hours are 9am to 10pm -- seven days a week -- with the occasional Saturday evening off for good behavior (at 6:30pm). This averages out to an eighty-five hour work week. Complaints that these once more extended hours combined with the team's existing fatigue would result in a greater number of mistakes made and an even greater amount of wasted energy were ignored.

The stress is taking its toll. After a certain number of hours spent working the eyes start to lose focus; after a certain number of weeks with only one day off fatigue starts to accrue and accumulate exponentially. There is a reason why there are two days in a weekend -- bad things happen to one's physical, emotional, and mental health if these days are cut short. The team is rapidly beginning to introduce as many flaws as they are removing.

And the kicker: for the honor of this treatment EA salaried employees receive a) no overtime; no compensation time! ('comp' time is the equalization of time off for overtime -- any hours spent during a crunch accrue into days off after the product has shipped); c) no additional sick or vacation leave. The time just goes away. Additionally, EA recently announced that, although in the past they have offered essentially a type of comp time in the form of a few weeks off at the end of a project, they no longer wish to do this, and employees shouldn't expect it. Further, since the production of various games is scattered, there was a concern on the part of the employees that developers would leave one crunch only to join another. EA's response was that they would attempt to minimize this, but would make no guarantees. This is unthinkable; they are pushing the team to individual physical health limits, and literally giving them nothing for it. Comp time is a staple in this industry, but EA as a corporation wishes to "minimize" this reprieve. One would think that the proper way to minimize comp time is to avoid crunch, but this brutal crunch has been on for months, and nary a whisper about any compensation leave, nor indeed of any end of this treatment.

This crunch also differs from crunch time in a smaller studio in that it was not an emergency effort to save a project from failure. Every step of the way, the project remained on schedule. Crunching neither accelerated this nor slowed it down; its effect on the actual product was not measurable. The extended hours were deliberate and planned; the management knew what they were doing as they did it. The love of my life comes home late at night complaining of a headache that will not go away and a chronically upset stomach, and my happy supportive smile is running out.

No one works in the game industry unless they love what they do. No one on that team is interested in producing an inferior product. My heart bleeds for this team precisely BECAUSE they are brilliant, talented individuals out to create something great. They are and were more than willing to work hard for the success of the title. But that good will has only been met with abuse. Amazingly, Electronic Arts was listed #91 on Fortune magazine's "100 Best Companies to Work For" in 2003.

EA's attitude toward this -- which is actually a part of company policy, it now appears -- has been (in an anonymous quotation that I've heard repeated by multiple managers), "If they don't like it, they can work someplace else." Put up or shut up and leave: this is the core of EA's Human Resources policy. The concept of ethics or compassion or even intelligence with regard to getting the most out of one's workforce never enters the equation: if they don't want to sacrifice their lives and their health and their talent so that a multibillion dollar corporation can continue its Godzilla-stomp through the game industry, they can work someplace else.

This article, and others like it, lead to changes in game industry labor practices. So to answer your question, very nearly.

Modifié par Reth Shepherd, 26 novembre 2012 - 03:28 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

This is getting irritating Dean. Stop filibustering every post. You need to be able to convey your points in fewer words.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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?

An employee on the clock or not represents his or her employer at all times. That's why even off work related activies can get you fired. I'm shocked that you don't know this. Do you work in the lifetime job realm of academia or something?

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You honestly think it's a serious poll.

So what's a serious poll? The Spike VGAs? The Oscars? They're all polls. You just don't happen to like the results here.

Dean_the_Young wrote...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.)

So all that effort to buy Bioware but there is no favoritism? Hard to believe.

Dean_the_Young wrote..

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.

1. It's not my job to hold your hand.

2. I never once said they spent all their money on ME3. You pulled that out of your ass. What I said was they spend a lot.

3. It's not my job to argue your position.

Dean_the_Young wrote...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.

Bioware is now owned by EA. EA sets the standards. They also hoped to dethrone WoW in the MMO market which failed.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 26 novembre 2012 - 04:54 .

[Kezzup]

iakus wrote...

Kezzup wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

Those who do not learn from history...

I'm not saying BioWare shouldn't learn from what they did wrong. I'm just saying we, as consumers, are helping no one by saying "Oh, you should have done THIS specific thing with the ending" because THAT'S already over. The post I replied to which started this whole conversation was one asking for a very specific detail on the ending, something which answering wouldn't have done much of anything for ME4 or anything else BioWare is working on.

I'm saying we should learn from history.  Don't trust words.  Trust actions.  And I've seen precious little action lately that I find encouraging.

I'm not saying BioWare shouldn't be held accountable for what they've done in the past. I'm just saying that trying to CHANGE what they've done in the apst isn't helping anyone.

[Constant Motion]

I think they care about fans' opinions. I don't think all of the fans, however, care much about the fact that BioWare isn't there to check items off their own personal wishlists. A camel is a horse designed by committee. Mass Effect is a story, not a sandbox, and not only would a panel of six fans be able to come up with seven contradictory storylines they'd like implemented, but no matter how interactive a story is, no matter how responsively it reacts to its reader's touch, no matter how much agency it gives the player... it's still a story, BioWare are still the story tellers, and they're not obliged to write a story that all their fans will like.

Because not everyone's going to get out alive. Not everyone's going to be capable of getting out alive. This may include beloved characters. Some points in time are fixed and others are in flux - the best thing BioWare can do is read the feedback, evaluate, communicate, and take it on board... but absolutely, if it's not in line with their vision, the best thing they can do is disregard it.

Try to please everyone and you won't please anyone - least of all yourself. It's a shame not to like a story, nobody chooses not to like a story, and when it's a chapter you've been looking forward to for a long time, it hurts - never more than when you, yourself, are the protagonist... but every story's going to disappoint someone. Shame it's you, but at least it does hurt.

No, it's not just a story. It's also a product, and in that sense there's a lot of good cause to give fans things they'll like. But the best way to do that, as a writer, is to take the ideas you like, because otherwise you might as well get a different storyteller in. Thane's death, for instance, was polarising, but I think any possibility of curing Kepral's syndrome would be kind of a cop-out. Many would disagree. They're not righter than me, they're not wronger than me, but BioWare would drive themselves crazy if they tried to keep both sides happy. It'd be messy. The only real solution is to tell the story that's right by them. Take on the feedback that they can use constructively, and disregard the stuff that's either destructive, or simply doesn't fit their vision.

Caring about fans' opinions and capitulating to their every request are completely different things. I think most people here understand that, thankfully, and are civilly discussing the story they either love or used to love, which I completely condone, but I do question the motives behind a few of the more... impassioned complaints. BioWare are here to tell you a story, not to do requests, or grant wishes, or play developer for someone else's story. So if you think your story's better, get writing!

Modifié par Constant Motion, 26 novembre 2012 - 03:36 .

[Archonsg]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

spirosz wrote...

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. 

And made irrelevant with multi-player
I have about 20,000 N7 asset points from MP that more or less says "You don't have to do any side missions for the *best ending options *."

Congratulations, then: your choices have had an impact on the story.

Don't see the correlation between my playing MP to shoot random stuff and SP's story line decision making, but, nice try at making a joke.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Er, yes. If you want to identify the worst corporation in America, Senior Citizens who not only have a good deal of experience with corporations but also are victims to some of the most flagrant and harmful corporate abuses would be an excellent population pool for a poll.

Limiting it to a small group of aware, interested, and often young people on the internet of a particular niche community is exactly why the poll is laughable, even before you get into how voting for the 'worst' company is an appeal to a majority argument, not an objective evaluation.

Senior citizens are victims of corporate abuses? More like victims of their own greedy and malevolent family and friends.

Moreover your dislike of the poll doesn't change anything as you have no idea of the demographics of the participants.

Dean_the_Young wrote...Because common morality of civilization held by most people in the Anglosphere holds that certain crimes are worse than others, and that crimes leading to death and wrongful impoverishment are far more serious than poor luxury goods and bad PR.

Isn't this an appeal to the majority argument you've bemoaned so much? The people who've had to sue EA for bad working conditions and unpaid overtime wages would disagree with your contention that their employer's conduct was harmless.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 26 novembre 2012 - 04:47 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

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.

I absolutely agree, as long as you aren't trying to sell it to me.

[Grubas]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

But it always helps to have good reviews regardless of the userreception. Especially to counter bad press. C'mon it is wildely known and showcased with enough examples that Companys use pressure on reviewers to give good scores.
Reviewerrmagazines need advertisementmoney and being blacklisted by a publisher is bad for business. 
Or do you think ME3 really deserves all this "perfect" scores? 

To be honest its not bad press that makes me not try DA2 or even DA:O after completing ME3. Its the disappointment with the game itself. 
If i think of biowaregames now, i must think: it is promising, it might be good or it might be a barebone of something it could have become, if not released to early. 





 

Modifié par Grubas, 26 novembre 2012 - 04:22 .

[ME859]

Mr.House wrote...

corporal doody wrote...

they wouldnt be asking if they werent atleast interested.

EC, Omega, and A LOT of MP stuff suggests they seriously do

Ok so where is Harbinger speaking, Andersons cut dialog back in, a revamped Earth mission, starbrat gone or at least that scene being good, reunion with squad in destory and closure? Because those where very wanted and did not show up.

See the questions about getting a sequel or a prequel make those oversights in the Extended Cut even bigger head scratchers.  After EC was released I hated the fact that they kept the vague breathe scene especially in a DLC whose expressed purpose was to provde clarity and closure.  Not that I was resting my hat on it, but I figured they had a plan for the next Mass Effect game and had to keep that scene in tact.  Truth was they hadn't even decided what the next game would be about.  

I really hope they revisit the ending again one day to take into account all of the above metioned wishes of the fans.  That or hopefully a really skilled programer is able to create a quality mod but I'm not holding my breath on either.  

It's a shame, especially after recently competeing Mass Effect 1 and 2 that the third one wasn't able to build on the previous 2 interations of the game in terms of story telling.  Especially in an industry that seems to be getting worse and worse at telling stories even though theres a huge demand for these types of games.