292 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadyKat]

Nothing wrong with it. However, you all knew that Shep' s story was going to conclude with ME3. Bioware has said this for almost 6 years.

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

No, because in my mind its their story and their ending. They showed that with the extended cut where they did what they promised, they differentiated the endings a lot more and actually explained  plot holes and gave closure for characters. 

That defeats the very purpose of chocie-based narratives.  Heck, role-playing in general.

If I had that mindset, I might as well be playing Assassin's Creed than Mass Effect.

So you should be grateful you had one ending where Shepard may live out of the numerous combinations present. No one ever is when they get one lick of the ice cream cone though...

"Thank you, sir!  May I have another?"

The ending was a plot moment, not a narrative moment.

In fact, all of the endings of Mass Effect are plot moments, because the choices made are designed to dress up the plot for future iterations, versus actually changing them. 

Choice-based narratives are always disconnected because the game makers create a plot first, that has to be followed. The choices made set up the story told, not the overall plot. Essentially, you are shaping the story within the plot, something BioWare has done since Baldur's Gate, and something that is very much emblematic of Role-Playing to begin with. 

And yes, you may have another. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 décembre 2012 - 04:00 .

[Iakus]

ShadyKat wrote...

Nothing wrong with it. However, you all knew that Shep' s story was going to conclude with ME3. Bioware has said this for almost 6 years.

My Bhaalspawn characters' stories concluded.  Most of them lived to settle down with their LIs

My Spirit Monk's story concluded.  They lived (well, all but one)

COncluded story =/= death and anguish

[Almostfaceman]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Maybe because they don't want to. Whats hard to understand about that?

Why would they not want to? Who would it hurt? People would get their Shep dying ending or a Shep living ending. Choice. That's what's hard to understand. Savvy?

No, because in my mind its their story and their ending. They showed that with the extended cut. 

So you should be grateful you had one ending where Shepard may live out of the numerous combinations present. No one ever is when they get one lick of the ice cream cone though...

Ownership of the story is not the issue. The issue is how Bioware could have written the ending with more choice to make more fans happy. Like they did in ME2. I can tell them I'm not happy with their product and give constructive feedback without ripping ownership away from them.

You seem to live in some strange little universe where companies make stuff and customers lap it all up because the company made that something.

The opposite is what's true. Companies that make crap products lose business and sometimes go out of business. Because customers have choices. This is why companies dump millions of dollars into finding out what their customers want. And here I am, giving them almost free feedback, all they have to do is maintain a message board.  

So, the issue isn't ownership of the game. The issue is, some are happy with the game and they don't like hearing that others don't like the game. They just want those people to shut up.

The problem is, the game inspired a lot of passionate fans, hardcore fans, who actually believed in Bioware when Bioware said they'd deliver a wide variety of endings. It wasn't a stretch to immediately think "ME2" where Shep and his crew can live or die. When that wasn't what was delivered, that passion became negative feedback. 

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 17 décembre 2012 - 04:07 .

[o Ventus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what I said it true then? I personally see no problem and you guys need to get over yourselves a bit when in any other situation the hero would survive with such a representation visually. 

So it's not a **** deal at all, its what they planned. As I said above you should be grateful that you got an ending where Shepard may have survived, since its pretty clear that he wasn't supposed to at all. Either that or play the modded ending. At this point any reasoning or compalints about Shepard dying is pointless, since it is set in stone and that won't change. 

So you really don't see how unfair it is when in 75% of endings, Shepard has full closure, but is instead ambiguous in the other?

The fact that you admit that it doesn't bother you 'personally' is telling. Good thing you aren't one of he writers.

[Iakus]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Ownership of the story is not the issue. The issue is how Bioware could have written the ending with more choice to make more fans happy. Like they did in ME2. I can tell them I'm not happy with their product and give constructive feedback without ripping ownership away from them.

You seem to live in some strange little universe where companies make stuff and customers lap it all up because the company made that something.

The opposite is what's true. Companies that make crap products lose business and sometimes go out of business. Because customers have choices. This is why companies dump millions of dollars into finding out what their customers want. And here I am, giving them almost free feedback, all they have to do is maintain a message board.  

So, the issue isn't ownership of the game. The issue is, some are happy with the game and they don't like hearing that others don't like the game. They just want those people to shut up.

The problem is, the game inspired a lot of passionate fans, hardcore fans, who actually believed in Bioware when Bioware said they'd deliver a wide variety of endings. It wasn't a stretch to immediately think "ME2" where Shep and his crew can live or die. When that wasn't what was delivered, that passion became negative feedback. 

All of this

[LinksOcarina]

Almostfaceman wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Maybe because they don't want to. Whats hard to understand about that?

Why would they not want to? Who would it hurt? People would get their Shep dying ending or a Shep living ending. Choice. That's what's hard to understand. Savvy?

No, because in my mind its their story and their ending. They showed that with the extended cut. 

So you should be grateful you had one ending where Shepard may live out of the numerous combinations present. No one ever is when they get one lick of the ice cream cone though...

Ownership of the story is not the issue. The issue is how Bioware could have written the ending with more choice to make more fans happy. Like they did in ME2. I can tell them I'm not happy with their product and give constructive feedback without ripping ownership away from them.

You seem to live in some strange little universe where companies make stuff and customers lap it all up because the company made that something.

The opposite is what's true. Companies that make crap products lose business and sometimes go out of business. Because customers have choices. This is why companies dump millions of dollars into finding out what their customers want. And here I am, giving them almost free feedback, all they have to do is maintain a message board.  

So, the issue isn't ownership if the game. The issue is, some are happy with the game and they don't like hearing that others don't like the game. They just want those people to shut up.

The problem is, the game inspired a lot of passionate fans, hardcore fans, who actually believed in Bioware when Bioware said they'd deliver a wide variety of endings. It wasn't a stretch to immediately think "ME2" where Shep and his crew can live or die. When that wasn't what was delivered, that passion became negative feedback. 

I am a passionate fan, or else I wouldn't be here. The problem is a two way street, where one company promised the world and hundreds of people took it  too personally, it's like the Peter Molyneux effect. 

The issue is very clear though, that its about ownership of the game. maybe not for you personally, but when every other person I see complains about the ending, or the changes, or the fact that Shepard is not theirs or that the role-playing is streamlined.  What is that then?  Is that just people venting? Or is it people wrestling with ideas they think are better? 

You, as an individual, may be able to articulate how you feel regarding the ending, and wether or not you are correct is a matter of subjectivity. But the majority around here burn with higher passions and let it get in the way of every sane person here. I don't expect people to lap up everything BioWare does, but I do expect them to respect them for the choices they made, since it was their call to begin with.

I don't know, maybe i'm just too jaded now to this overblown controversy, and I can't help but call out everyone on the drama now. This is all this thread is, fabricated drama to complain for the sake of it. 

It's baffling to me, frankly. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 décembre 2012 - 04:18 .

[LinksOcarina]

o Ventus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what I said it true then? I personally see no problem and you guys need to get over yourselves a bit when in any other situation the hero would survive with such a representation visually. 

So it's not a **** deal at all, its what they planned. As I said above you should be grateful that you got an ending where Shepard may have survived, since its pretty clear that he wasn't supposed to at all. Either that or play the modded ending. At this point any reasoning or compalints about Shepard dying is pointless, since it is set in stone and that won't change. 

So you really don't see how unfair it is when in 75% of endings, Shepard has full closure, but is instead ambiguous in the other?

The fact that you admit that it doesn't bother you 'personally' is telling. Good thing you aren't one of he writers.

So **** you too?  

You know, why have any pretense of cordial conversation when you try to belittle me for disagreeing with your personal opinion. Oh, wait, it's because you think you're right...

I got to remember to grow an ego and think like that around here. 

And no, I don't see it as being unfair. Some endings are simply better than others, you make your bed when you pick it. 

[SpamBot2000]

LinksOcarina wrote...

No, because in my mind its their story and their ending. They showed that with the extended cut where they did what they promised, they differentiated the endings a lot more and actually explained  plot holes and gave closure for characters. 

So you should be grateful you had one ending where Shepard may live out of the numerous combinations present. No one ever is when they get one lick of the ice cream cone though...

Mass Effect was a multi-year project, in which the players contributed by paying for it and investing themselves in it by their identification. This was precisely what it was always advertised and sold as. The legal status of the IP as BioWare property does not make it morally OK for them to suddenly declare that the players have no legitimate claim to some status as participants in the venture. It just makes them liars. So we cannot take legal action against them, but we are certainly entitled (yes) to morally judge this kind of act. Just like, say, cheating on your spouse might be perfectly legal in your country, but that does not make it morally right.

To suggest that the proper feeling toward this renegade company (who after all, did renege on their commitment to share certain intangible qualities of ownership over the story with the participant-financiers, AKA 'the fanz') is gratitude is an attempt to enforce a neo-feudalism the corporate culture is trying to establish in relation to the consumers. I'd prefer the basic morality of honoring commitments take precedence over corporate claims to sovereignity over the 'mass of consumers' on our list of values.  

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 17 décembre 2012 - 04:21 .

[Almostfaceman]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I am a passionate fan, or else I wouldn't be here. The problem is a two way street, where one company promised the world and hundreds of people took it seriously, it's like the Peter Molyneux effect. 

The issue is very clear though, that its about ownership of the game. maybe not for you personally, but when every other person I see complains about the ending, or the changes, or the fact that Shepard is not theirs or that the role-playing is streamlined.  What is that then?  Is that just people venting? Or is it people wrestling with ideas they think are better? 

You, as an individual, may be able to articulate how you feel regarding the ending, and wether or not you are correct is a matter of subjectivity. But the majority around here burn with higher passions and let it get in the way of every sane person here. I don't expect people to lap up everything BioWare does, but I do expect them to respect them for the choices they made, since it was their call to begin with.

I don't know, maybe i'm just too jaded now to this overblown controversy, and I can't help but call out everyone on the drama now. This is all this thread is, fabricated drama to complain for the sake of it. 

It's baffling to me, frankly. 

It's not really anything more dramatic than say, me not buying a Ford Truck because I like the way a Dodge Truck looks. In this instance, though, the company gets the benefit of hearing why I like the looks of the Dodge over the Ford. Or why I'd pick Linux over Microsoft. There's no "drama". People aren't burning down Bioware headquarters. They're making the same choice they do when they pick that one product over another. 

Poor Ford would have to buy market research to find out why their truck sales were dropping (if enough people shared my opinion of Ford design and picked Dodge or something else) and yet Bioware is lucky enough to have built a product people care enough about to go out of their way and provide feedback. 

Companies do not get respect for making a product. For example, I don't respect Ford for making a truck I think is ugly. Companies get respect for making a product their customers want. It's really that simple. That you would expect anything more is baffling to me. 

[hiraeth]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Ownership of the story is not the issue. The issue is how Bioware could have written the ending with more choice to make more fans happy. Like they did in ME2. I can tell them I'm not happy with their product and give constructive feedback without ripping ownership away from them. 

You seem to live in some strange little universe where companies make stuff and customers lap it all up because the company made that something.

The opposite is what's true. Companies that make crap products lose business and sometimes go out of business. Because customers have choices. This is why companies dump millions of dollars into finding out what their customers want. And here I am, giving them almost free feedback, all they have to do is maintain a message board.  

So, the issue isn't ownership of the game. The issue is, some are happy with the game and they don't like hearing that others don't like the game. They just want those people to shut up.

The problem is, the game inspired a lot of passionate fans, hardcore fans, who actually believed in Bioware when Bioware said they'd deliver a wide variety of endings. It wasn't a stretch to immediately think "ME2" where Shep and his crew can live or die. When that wasn't what was delivered, that passion became negative feedback. 

Agreed. The whole "you should be happy you got anything!" or "you should be satisfied with Bioware's product (and not demand more/changes) because it was their story to tell however they wanted!" attitudes are completely missing the point. First, we have a right to be upset, to voice what we're upset about, and to request change. We can't force Bioware to make any changes or even to acknowledge our feedback, but I have the right to b*tch about a sh*tty product, especially if I paid for it and, based on advertisement and publicity, was led to believe I'd receive a different product. If someone gave you $.50 when you thought they were going to pay you $20, you'd have the right to b*tch too.

I guess my point is that, yes, I agree the "drama" on BSN is largely negative in nature, and that's a bummer. However, telling people to stop voicing their discontent, stop complaining, just accept what was given and move on, etc. is all largely unhelpful and discourages critical and active thinking. Communal venting is a great way to make sense of how disappointed you are, and to receive validation when you see that other people are upset too. It sucks that it's negative, but it is what it is, and acceptance has to come from all corners (not just from people who are upset, but from people who complain about people being upset).

[Ieldra]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I have no idea how people can say that the endings "have a sameness to them" after the EC. The outcomes couldn't be more different, and Shepard lives in high-EMS Destroy. Can't you take in the spirit it was meant: SHEPARD IS ALIVE!!!! It's so utterly obvious that I fail to have any sympathy for this particular complaint.

And you can bet that Bioware thinks exactly the same, and that's why they don't "address the problem". There is no problem.

Nope, the scene is left intentionally ambigious for people to interpret how they want to interpret it, and Bioware has said so. There's room for Shep dying in that ending, if one so chooses. 

The people who want Shep to live, want an ending where Shep dying cannot be read into the ending. I'm not sure why that's so hard for Bioware to deliver. 

No, it's not left intentionally ambiguous. There is NOTHING ambiguous about that scene. Shepard survives.  Period. That it's open to "Shepard dies in the next minute" may be true, but that's akin to saying "Yes, we see a living civlization in the epilogue, but the galaxy can explode in the next minute." It's a fanfic headcanon scenario not ruled out by the scene. Do you now expect Bioware to make endings that eplicitly contradicts any headcanon anyone else dislikes? You can be sure we'd end up with a scenario almost on one likes.

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...
I am a passionate fan, or else I wouldn't be here. The problem is a two way street, where one company promised the world and hundreds of people took it  too personally, it's like the Peter Molyneux effect. 

The issue is very clear though, that its about ownership of the game. maybe not for you personally, but when every other person I see complains about the ending, or the changes, or the fact that Shepard is not theirs or that the role-playing is streamlined.  What is that then?  Is that just people venting? Or is it people wrestling with ideas they think are better? 

You, as an individual, may be able to articulate how you feel regarding the ending, and wether or not you are correct is a matter of subjectivity. But the majority around here burn with higher passions and let it get in the way of every sane person here. I don't expect people to lap up everything BioWare does, but I do expect them to respect them for the choices they made, since it was their call to begin with.

I don't know, maybe i'm just too jaded now to this overblown controversy, and I can't help but call out everyone on the drama now. This is all this thread is, fabricated drama to complain for the sake of it. 

It's baffling to me, frankly. 

We're passionate fans too.  The ones who aren't have left for greener pasutres by now.  And it wasn't "a few hundred fans" who bought into Biwoare's line.  It was tens of thousads of people, probably more. 

The Mass Effect galaxy is Bioware's world.  But the Shepard is ours.  Together we make the story.  That's how role playing works.  Or in the case of cRPGS, that's how the illusion is suposed to work.

And when the GM railroads the character into a situation where every outcome is an ooc action and/or and unpleasant fate, is it any wonder when table-flipping ensues?

You may not care in this case.  The train may have taken you in a direction you were okay with.  Or maybe you just don't care enough about the story to be bothered.  But to me this is important.  Not just for ME3, but for the next game Bioware makes.  And the one after that.  How can I ever trust Bioware again?  Why should I get invested in any character I make in future games, when they can drop a bridge on it at any time?

[LinksOcarina]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

No, because in my mind its their story and their ending. They showed that with the extended cut where they did what they promised, they differentiated the endings a lot more and actually explained  plot holes and gave closure for characters. 

So you should be grateful you had one ending where Shepard may live out of the numerous combinations present. No one ever is when they get one lick of the ice cream cone though...

Mass Effect was a multi-year project, in which the players contributed by paying for it and investing themselves in it by their identification. This was precisely what it was always advertised and sold as. The legal status of the IP as BioWare property does not make it morally OK for them to suddenly declare that the players have no legitimate claim to some status as participants in the venture. It just makes them liars. So we cannot take legal action against them, but we are certainly entitled (yes) to morally judge this kind of an act. Just like, say, cheating on your spouse might be perfectly legal in your country, but that does not make it morally right.

To suggest that the proper feeling toward this renegade company (who after all, did renege on their commitment to share certain intangible qualities of ownership over the story with the participant-financiers, AKA 'the fanz') is gratitude is an attempt to enforce a neo-feudalism the corporate culture is trying to establish in relation to the consumers. I'd prefer the basic morality of honoring commitments take precedence over corporate claims to sovereignity over the 'mass of consumers' on our list of values.  

So did you sign a binding contract that honors such commitments? (which has little to do with this, but ill play ball.)

If you want to get technical on this, you, as the consumer technically have no ownership of the title to begin with. The game is a liscenced product under a standard EULA, ergo, there shouldn't even be a conversation regarding the rights of the consumers unless if you take it court and challenge the law. Because you are borrowing the game, BioWare reserved the rights to change up the makeup of the game as they see fit, which they exercised through Mass Effect 2 by removing a lot of elements then. 

Morally right or wrong in that sense is irrelevent. Is it a dick thing to do, to control or change aspects of the game? Sure. It can be seen as such. But if thats the case BioWare has been pulling the same tricks since 1998, why it took 14 years for people to be upset is beyond me then. Maybe the fact that its more transparent in Mass Effect 3 is the problem then. Or maybe we as the consumers have become spoiled over time. I don't know. 

In the end, BioWare did not negate any commitment to share intangible qualities of ownership with the fans. This, to me, harkens back to the whole story vs plot disconnect that I have championed as a sort of "psuedo-problem" between the consumers and the developers. That to me seems to be the heart of the issues here regarding Mass Effect 3. But thats me. 

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...
No, it's not left intentionally ambiguous. There is NOTHING ambiguous about that scene. Shepard survives.  Period. That it's open to "Shepard dies in the next minute" may be true, but that's akin to saying "Yes, we see a living civlization in the epilogue, but the galaxy can explode in the next minute." It's a fanfic headcanon scenario not ruled out by the scene. Do you now expect Bioware to make endings that eplicitly contradicts any headcanon anyone else dislikes? You can be sure we'd end up with a scenario almost on one likes.

All the scene says is "Shepard is still alive"  it says nothing about Shepard surviving.  And the framing of that situation makes Shepard' situation extremely precarious.  That's the very definition of a cliffhanger, which ME3 was promised not to be.

And yet Devs are on record as saying Shepard's fate is deliberately ambiguous.  Look up the transcript for Mass Effect:  Past, Present, Future if you don't believe me.

Modifié par iakus, 17 décembre 2012 - 04:40 .

[Almostfaceman]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No, it's not left intentionally ambiguous. There is NOTHING ambiguous about that scene. Shepard survives.  Period. That it's open to "Shepard dies in the next minute" may be true, but that's akin to saying "Yes, we see a living civlization in the epilogue, but the galaxy can explode in the next minute." It's a fanfic headcanon scenario not ruled out by the scene. Do you now expect Bioware to make endings that eplicitly contradicts any headcanon anyone else dislikes? You can be sure we'd end up with a scenario almost on one likes.

So, you're comparing a beaten and bloody body exposed to previous explosions and possibly vacuum in outer space buried in heavy debris - with a galaxy rotating along all by itself in the universe? Really?

Look, Bioware did it with ME2, I'm not sure why you suddenly think they can't make an ending that makes most fans happy. 

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
I am a passionate fan, or else I wouldn't be here. The problem is a two way street, where one company promised the world and hundreds of people took it  too personally, it's like the Peter Molyneux effect. 

The issue is very clear though, that its about ownership of the game. maybe not for you personally, but when every other person I see complains about the ending, or the changes, or the fact that Shepard is not theirs or that the role-playing is streamlined.  What is that then?  Is that just people venting? Or is it people wrestling with ideas they think are better? 

You, as an individual, may be able to articulate how you feel regarding the ending, and wether or not you are correct is a matter of subjectivity. But the majority around here burn with higher passions and let it get in the way of every sane person here. I don't expect people to lap up everything BioWare does, but I do expect them to respect them for the choices they made, since it was their call to begin with.

I don't know, maybe i'm just too jaded now to this overblown controversy, and I can't help but call out everyone on the drama now. This is all this thread is, fabricated drama to complain for the sake of it. 

It's baffling to me, frankly. 

We're passionate fans too.  The ones who aren't have left for greener pasutres by now.  And it wasn't "a few hundred fans" who bought into Biwoare's line.  It was tens of thousads of people, probably more. 

The Mass Effect galaxy is Bioware's world.  But the Shepard is ours.  Together we make the story.  That's how role playing works.  Or in the case of cRPGS, that's how the illusion is suposed to work.

And when the GM railroads the character into a situation where every outcome is an ooc action and/or and unpleasant fate, is it any wonder when table-flipping ensues?

You may not care in this case.  The train may have taken you in a direction you were okay with.  Or maybe you just don't care enough about the story to be bothered.  But to me this is important.  Not just for ME3, but for the next game Bioware makes.  And the one after that.  How can I ever trust Bioware again?  Why should I get invested in any character I make in future games, when they can drop a bridge on it at any time?

What is more important, the journey or the outcome of it? I think it was Edith Hamilton who said the gods of the Roman Pantheon were terrible heroes, because they never were under the threat of dying. You get invested in the stories of heroes because they are always at risk of dying, and sometimes they do, but the fact that they put themselves in that position is what makes them heroic. I see Shepard at that threshold, and its why it makes sense for me that he has to die. Of course thats an agree to disagree I understand that, but what does this, actually, have to do with trust?

 For me it seems like an issue, again, of control of the whole game. For starters Shepard was always a hybrid character, both BioWares and the players. It's a weird relationship that was readily apparent in Mass Effect one anyway, considering the railroading of the plot in several instances through both exposition and dialouge. So that being in the conversation I always felt was a smokescreen to make a point. But even if he was fully yours and mine, then why have the central plot? why not go full bore like Elder Scrolls where it is completely open for us to Role-Play Shepard our way, instead of being shackled and changing the context of a story.  After all, role-playing is different things for different people, and games like Fallout and Elder Scrolls tend to have more of what people want out of role-playing, freedom of choice being prime among them. 

So the real question then is not if you can ever trust BioWare again, but rather why do you mistrust them to begin with?  If it is because of what you said above, the hero dying should not matter at all. If it is because you feel you were railroaded into an outcome, you were. But every RPG does that, what changes it is the so-called headcanon the players create.

Maybe I am just mired too much into game mechanics and theory, but the railroading needs to be done to have any sort of central plot in a game. So I fail to see it as an major issue unless if this was fully sloppy storytelling, which in many peoples minds thats the case, so I won't argue that here. But then this makes everything about this conversation wholly subjective. Ergo my original posts about this being a sort of non issue, because the writers of the game did what they always do, force an outcome. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 décembre 2012 - 04:50 .

[SpamBot2000]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So did you sign a binding contract that honors such commitments? (which has little to do with this, but ill play ball.)

If you want to get technical on this, you, as the consumer technically have no ownership of the title to begin with. The game is a liscenced product under a standard EULA, ergo, there shouldn't even be a conversation regarding the rights of the consumers unless if you take it court and challenge the law. Because you are borrowing the game, BioWare reserved the rights to change up the makeup of the game as they see fit, which they exercised through Mass Effect 2 by removing a lot of elements then. 

Morally right or wrong in that sense is irrelevent. Is it a dick thing to do, to control or change aspects of the game? Sure. It can be seen as such. But if thats the case BioWare has been pulling the same tricks since 1998, why it took 14 years for people to be upset is beyond me then. Maybe the fact that its more transparent in Mass Effect 3 is the problem then. Or maybe we as the consumers have become spoiled over time. I don't know. 

In the end, BioWare did not negate any commitment to share intangible qualities of ownership with the fans. This, to me, harkens back to the whole story vs plot disconnect that I have championed as a sort of "psuedo-problem" between the consumers and the developers. That to me seems to be the heart of the issues here regarding Mass Effect 3. But thats me. 

There you go, lawyering a moral issue. This would be a valid argument for a BioWare lawyer to make in the event, or a credible threat, of a lawsuit. But since this is not such an event, and as far as I know you are not a BioWare lawyer, why do you feel called upon to engage in such tactics? It doesn't seem to make much sense.

Fact is, BioWare sold the game as an adventure starring 'your Shepard', and they have repeatedly claimed the series as belonging 'both to them and the players'. Whether a contract was signed is neither here nor there. If BioWare want to assert their total ownership of the franchise, I'm sure they have solid legal grounds to do so. The dishonesty of their promises is not erased.

Dishonesty is offensive to the sense of justice we are encouraged to develop in society. An entity perceived as dishonest is likely to elicit hostility. This is something a lawyer, professional or gentleman hobbyist, is in no position to assist with. 
 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 17 décembre 2012 - 05:12 .

[Kel Riever]

The Protagonists were Garrus, Liara and StarChild.

Oh, see, now that you think of it that way, you realize Shepard was just an ancillary character!

[LinksOcarina]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So did you sign a binding contract that honors such commitments? (which has little to do with this, but ill play ball.)

If you want to get technical on this, you, as the consumer technically have no ownership of the title to begin with. The game is a liscenced product under a standard EULA, ergo, there shouldn't even be a conversation regarding the rights of the consumers unless if you take it court and challenge the law. Because you are borrowing the game, BioWare reserved the rights to change up the makeup of the game as they see fit, which they exercised through Mass Effect 2 by removing a lot of elements then. 

Morally right or wrong in that sense is irrelevent. Is it a dick thing to do, to control or change aspects of the game? Sure. It can be seen as such. But if thats the case BioWare has been pulling the same tricks since 1998, why it took 14 years for people to be upset is beyond me then. Maybe the fact that its more transparent in Mass Effect 3 is the problem then. Or maybe we as the consumers have become spoiled over time. I don't know. 

In the end, BioWare did not negate any commitment to share intangible qualities of ownership with the fans. This, to me, harkens back to the whole story vs plot disconnect that I have championed as a sort of "psuedo-problem" between the consumers and the developers. That to me seems to be the heart of the issues here regarding Mass Effect 3. But thats me. 

There you go, lawyering a moral issue. This would be a valid argument for a BioWare lawyer to make in the event, or a credible threat, of a law suit. But since this is not such an event, and as far as I know you are not a BioWare lawyer, why do you feel called upon to engage in such tactics? It doesn't seem to make much sense.

Fact is, BioWare sold the game as an adventure starring 'your Shepard', and they have repeatedly claimed the series as belonging 'both to them and the players'. Whether a contract was signed is neither here nor there. If BioWare want to assert their total ownership of the franchise, I'm sure they have solid legal grounds to do so. The dishonesty of their promises is not erased.
 

The dishonesty of their promises is non-existant as it is only subjective to the individuals who claim it as much. For example, you said one of their claims was "the series belongs to both them and the players."

That quote alone can be interpreted as "both of us control aspects of the game." If that is the case, why would the fanbase then infringe on BioWares assertion of control. Of course that depends on interpretation, versus something that can be contrued as dishonesty. Do I see it that way, yes. Do you? I don't know. 

Thats the tricky thing about phrases and PR stuff, people take it at face value more often than not, when it is, like everything else, made somewhat vague so you get a semblence of the desired outcome. Saying it was our Shepard is not a lie at all, we created and mapped the story of Shepard. The plot is theirs, however, and we can't change that. 

So if you see it as BioWare being dishonest I won't change your opinion. I just object to you saying it as if it were a fact, when it is not. At best, it is situational depending on how you view things said, which again are somewhat vague to begin with.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 décembre 2012 - 05:21 .

[Fawx9]

jtav wrote...

They only started saying "it's up to you" after months of complaining, essentially saying "if you want to be miserable, knock yourselves out." When that scene pops up in a movie or TV show, everyone knows it means the hero lives. Everyone knew it pre-EC or they wouldn't have been complaining about the EMS requirement. I'm sick of willful misery.

The Grey would disagree with you.

[chidingewe8036]

Who really knows anything about what Bioware thought during ME3's production.

[chidingewe8036]

everyone that has told me shepard's story is over...........who cares? irrelevant topic is irrelevant.

[SpamBot2000]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So if you see it as BioWare being dishonest I won't change your opinion. I just object to you saying it as if it were a fact, when it is not. At best, it is situational depending on how view things said, which again are somewhat vague to begin with.

'Social facts' are certainly ontologically questionable. What I am doing is an attempt to interpret the conflict over the story of Mass Effect in terms that correspond to the social perceptions of a significant party to this conflict, because such conflicts are even more difficult to resolve in denial of these perceptions. Reducing a social conflict to legalisms is just the defensive manouver of the party better served by the law to shift perception into a more favorable context.  

[LinksOcarina]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So if you see it as BioWare being dishonest I won't change your opinion. I just object to you saying it as if it were a fact, when it is not. At best, it is situational depending on how view things said, which again are somewhat vague to begin with.

'Social facts' are certainly ontologically questionable. What I am doing is an attempt to interpret the conflict over the story of Mass Effect in terms that correspond to the social perceptions of a significant party to this conflict, because such conflicts are even more difficult to resolve in denial of these perceptions. Reducing a social conflict to legalisms is just the defensive manouver of the party better served by the law to shift perception into a more favorable context.  

So why did you mention the legality of a binding contract to begin with if you suddenly want to move the goal posts back on something you see as a manouver, just to fall back on the moral implications which are, as I said, still subjective in no ones favor? 

It seems like your attempt has failed then because frankly I did not see your interpretation at all. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 décembre 2012 - 05:30 .