435 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

i think its better that the devs (especially writers) do not answer on this board.

even if they would answer our question here, it would massivly derail within 5 minutes ... on a quiet day.

but .. a blog or update from time to time, would be much appreciated. please .. less twitter more bsn/official page - this is the place for important news. the fans are here.


while i am not always in line with isaacshep, his image was very, very accurate.

[Ninja Stan]

crimzontearz wrote...

they knowingly lied about many things ore release...strike 1

This is a hotly debated topic, and I don't know that you can prove it one way or another. The many discussions on this topic that I've seen appear to hinge on how people interpret pre-release messaging. Your mileage may vary, according to how much you want to hate "the big bad company" and how much "consumer responsibility" you believe people should have to monitor their own spending and expectations.

they hijacked the ending and BOTCHED IT then subtoy hinted the fans were too dull to understand. Strike 2

It is not possible for a company to "hijack" its own product. The decisions they make are the decisions they make. The game would not have magically had a "better" ending or a "more agreeable" ending if BioWare didn't "hijack" BioWare's own game. And at no time did BioWare "sublty hint" that fans were "too dull to understand." That is the product of frustrated, disappointed fans wanting to continue to feel victimized by "the big bad company."

they had the chance to listen to us and fix things....they still managed to ****** people off offering a lovely middle finger 1-2 in the form of a non ending refuse option AND the non expansion of the breath scene...strike 3

They would have "managed to ****** people off" regardless of what they did. Or do you honestly believe that all of the Mass Effect fans out there want exactly the same thing from the game, and got into the series for the same reasons? Even in this thread, there are disagreements. But I will leave you with this question, which I try to ask those people who feel that BioWare "doesn't listen."

If a given person says they want to see X in a game, and another person says they want to see Y, not X, in the game, which one do the developers listen to? No matter which one they pick, they will disappoint someone. Now, imagine that, instead of two people with two options, there are 100 people with 100 options. How do you propose a game developer, any game developer, succeed in pleasing everyone on this spectrum that can have mutually exclusive and contradictory wants or needs?

 no, I do not want them ANYWHERE NEAR anything I will buy in the future

The easiest way to do that is to not buy future Mass Effect products created by BioWare. And it's not on them to do that, it's on you.

[Ninja Stan]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

So hurt, angry people are just plain "awful", while the people who hurt and angered them deserve nothing but meek adoration? 

That's not the relationship you have with the developers. BioWare has created a game to be sold, and you bought it. BioWare did not go to your house and kick your puppy or de-alphabetize your DVDs. They released a product for commercial sale, period. There is nothing personal about that.

And your humble entreaties to the devs go unanswered only because those bad people keep meddling?

Again, that's not the relationship you have with the developers. They are not your slaves, your employeeds, your buddies, or any other relationship that obligates them to answer your "humble entreaties." They might do so, because they do love the community and, as evidenced by dev participation in the forum pre-release, have been more intimately involved in discussions before. But that doesn't mean they will always be that involved, or that they are forced to be involved. You will likely see more dev involvement in the community once future games are announced and discussed.

In the meantime, you might find a dev willing to discuss game issues on their personal social media. But once again, they are under no obligation to do so.

[Fixers0]

No, Bioware needs to learn they made an rather low quality product.

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Well, there is the possibility that they ended up going with this nuclear ending solution because EA were pushing them so hard. And, given enough time, they could have come up with something not designed to collapse the whole setting. But that's something we can only speculate on.

It's not inconceivable. But since the leaked script and what we know about the dark energy plot both endied in similar  kinds of choices, it looks to me like Bio always wanted to go the route of having a morally problematic choice at the end of the game.

Whether there's a choice that would have fit those criteria and still worked for you folks isn't something I'm competent to speculate on.

[AlanC9]

Ninja Stan wrote...
This is a hotly debated topic, and I don't know that you can prove it one way or another. The many discussions on this topic that I've seen appear to hinge on how people interpret pre-release messaging. Your mileage may vary, according to how much you want to hate "the big bad company" and how much "consumer responsibility" you believe people should have to monitor their own spending and expectations.

Stan, I think the more sophisticated version of the critique is that there were a lot of prerelease statements that were technically true but were easily misinterpreted, and that Bio staff either knew or should have known that people were misinterpreting the statements.

[Ninja Stan]

vivaladricas wrote...

So customers that buy all those games and merchandise, their money does not go to Bioware.

That's an oversimplification, like me saying that I pay your salary because I buy things from companies whose employees might bank at a place that invests in a fund that includes the company you work for.

BioWare employees are paid by BioWare, regardless of whether any games are purchased, completed, or worked on. They are retained on salary. No matter how well that game sells, their salaries are not affected. So no, you are not directly paying BioWare developers' salaries.

BioWare as a company gets its money from its parent company, EA. Generally, this would be determined by a game's budget plus whatever operating costs are needed during the time the game is being developed. This happens months and years before the game hits store shelves, before the general public even hears about the game. So no, the money you paid for that BioWare game does not go directly to BioWare.

EA gets its money from the wholesale distrubution and sales of its products. Retailers purchase games in bulk from EA the publisher, and EA also sells its games digitally through Origin. So unless you buy your game digitally through Origin, you are not even giving your money directly to EA.

So who are you giving money to? Well, your preferred retailer, of course. When you buy a game, the retailer gets a piece of it, and every other business entity in the chain of creation and supply also gets a piece of it. But everyone in that chain has already been paid for their work up to that point. Even if that game sells only 3 copies, everyone from the game store employee all the way up to the game's executive producer, has been paid for the work they have already done.

Whether the sales contribute to any bonuses is a different matter entirely, and really, no one else's business.

If literally no one bought ME3 Bioware would profit?

Nope, but BioWare employees' salaries aren't paid based on profit.

Shareholders would still invest in EA with hardly any customers?

EA is a larger company than BioWare's Mass Efect 3. Depending on how the company as a whole is doing, shareholders may still invest in the company. But that has nothing to do with how money gets from you the customer to BioWare the developer or EA the publisher.

Money comes from the consumers, that is a fact. 

Absolutely, but it seems you don't really know where it goes after it leaves your hand in exchange for product. Besides which, "I pay your salary" is a terrible way to try and persuade someone to listen to what you have to say. Unless you literally employ them and literally pay their salary, of course.

[crimzontearz]

Ninja Stan wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

they knowingly lied about many things ore release...strike 1

This is a hotly debated topic, and I don't know that you can prove it one way or another. The many discussions on this topic that I've seen appear to hinge on how people interpret pre-release messaging. Your mileage may vary, according to how much you want to hate "the big bad company" and how much "consumer responsibility" you believe people should have to monitor their own spending and expectations.

they hijacked the ending and BOTCHED IT then subtoy hinted the fans were too dull to understand. Strike 2

It is not possible for a company to "hijack" its own product. The decisions they make are the decisions they make. The game would not have magically had a "better" ending or a "more agreeable" ending if BioWare didn't "hijack" BioWare's own game. And at no time did BioWare "sublty hint" that fans were "too dull to understand." That is the product of frustrated, disappointed fans wanting to continue to feel victimized by "the big bad company."

they had the chance to listen to us and fix things....they still managed to ****** people off offering a lovely middle finger 1-2 in the form of a non ending refuse option AND the non expansion of the breath scene...strike 3

They would have "managed to ****** people off" regardless of what they did. Or do you honestly believe that all of the Mass Effect fans out there want exactly the same thing from the game, and got into the series for the same reasons? Even in this thread, there are disagreements. But I will leave you with this question, which I try to ask those people who feel that BioWare "doesn't listen."

If a given person says they want to see X in a game, and another person says they want to see Y, not X, in the game, which one do the developers listen to? No matter which one they pick, they will disappoint someone. Now, imagine that, instead of two people with two options, there are 100 people with 100 options. How do you propose a game developer, any game developer, succeed in pleasing everyone on this spectrum that can have mutually exclusive and contradictory wants or needs?

 no, I do not want them ANYWHERE NEAR anything I will buy in the future

The easiest way to do that is to not buy future Mass Effect products created by BioWare. And it's not on them to do that, it's on you.

1 they lied about MP, knowingly and I have an apology from Brenon Holmes to prove it. and even assuming it was all a misunderstanding they never even begun to publicly acknowledge it all while Chris simply,y went on saying it was being investigated (and there really was nothing to investigate)

2 you KNOW I mean Casey and Mac, not Bioware as a whole, ....better yet, if you actually paid attention you WOULD know...but you did not

3 no, they would not. Even sticking with their current vision a simple addition of closure for Destroy would have made a LOT of people happy or at least happily able to swallow it. But then the balance between the endings would have ruptured right? even more than it has now.....can't have that right?

4 I plan on it, at the very least by buying the next few titles second hand

[Ninja Stan]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...
This is a hotly debated topic, and I don't know that you can prove it one way or another. The many discussions on this topic that I've seen appear to hinge on how people interpret pre-release messaging. Your mileage may vary, according to how much you want to hate "the big bad company" and how much "consumer responsibility" you believe people should have to monitor their own spending and expectations.

Stan, I think the more sophisticated version of the critique is that there were a lot of prerelease statements that were technically true but were easily misinterpreted, and that Bio staff either knew or should have known that people were misinterpreting the statements.

Sure, I can accept that argument. But many who offer that argument present it in a way that I can and will dispute. This is why more reasonable, civil discourse is so important.

[David7204]

You know, I hate to say it, but I have to agree. I've defended the developers against a lot of incredibly stupid attacks here. (as I would hope I would do to anyone who is the victim of ridiculous accusations.) But looking over some of the pre-release statements...it's very difficult to see them as anything but lies. Many of these were said close enough to release that there's no way the game was altered in the meantime.

When a developer promises something as yes-no as "You won't be required to play multiplayer to get all the endings" and then flat-out fails to deliver on that promise...it's incredibly frustrating. And I can definitely understand the anger towards certain staff members based on that. It doesn't help that the developers have flip-flopped over whether it was a bug or intentional.

Modifié par David7204, 29 décembre 2012 - 11:00 .

[DirtySHISN0]

I'm not sure whether i feel bad about criticism or not.

I hadn't even heard about Mass Effect until the january before ME3's release (i don't follow advertising or release dates, time just sort of overtakes me)

By the time i had finished them ME3 was out in a few days - excellent.

I can honestly say i was disappointed because of the standard the previous games had set, not by anything advertised.

[crimzontearz]

David7204 wrote...

You know, I hate to say it, but I have to agree. I've defended the developers against a lot of incredibly stupid statements (as I would hope I would do to anyone who is the victim of ridiculous accusations.) But looking over some of the pre-release statements...it's very difficult to see them as anything but lies. Many of these were said close enough to release that there's no way the game was altered in the meantime.

When a developer promises something as yes-no as "You won't be required to play multiplayer to get all the endings" and then flat-out fails to deliver on that promise...it's incredibly frustrating. It doesn't help that the developers have flip-flopped over whether it was a bug or intentional.

and as I said...the DECENT developers apologized PERSONALLY about it tho it was not their fault

Casey and Mac? only silence from them

Modifié par crimzontearz, 29 décembre 2012 - 11:02 .

[Ninja Stan]

crimzontearz wrote...

1 they lied about MP, knowingly and I have an apology from Brenon Holmes to prove it. and even assuming it was all a misunderstanding they never even begun to publicly acknowledge it all while Chris simply,y went on saying it was being investigated (and there really was nothing to investigate)

You mean the EMS and MP being required? Okay, I'll give you that. That's one thing they may have "knowingly lied about pre-release." What else? You claimed there were "many" things.

2 you KNOW I mean Casey and Mac, not Bioware as a whole, ....better yet, if you actually paid attention you WOULD know...but you did not

I can only respond to the arguments you actually present. I can't read your mind to determine what you really mean. but again, Casey and Mac are two of the most important people on the project. So yes, you can absolutely disagree with the decisions they made. You can absolutely think they did bad jobs. But they still can't "hijack" their own project.

3 no, they would not. Even sticking with their current vision a simple addition of closure for Destroy would have made a LOT of people happy or at least happily able to swallow it. But then the balance between the endings would have ruptured right? even more than it has now.....can't have that right?

Have you ever made a wrong decision? Then you can't really be relied upon to make unerringly accurate predictions, right? And you're not the only person who has an opinion on the endings, right? I would submit that your ideas of what would make "a LOT of people happy" or at least tolerate is as valid as anyone else's, including the developers'. This is a simple matter of disagreeing with a game or story decision.

4 I plan on it, at the very least by buying the next few titles second hand

There you go. It sounds like your position on this is crystal clear.

[Grubas]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Grubas wrote...

Sorry but bioware was really calm and though many well thought-out posts were floating around devs decided not to come out and talk. Seriously there were many offers to talk and they all have been slapped.

If BioWare "decided not to come out and talkm" how is this a "slap"? BioWare listens to feedback, but they have never promised that all feedback would be acknowledged, that they will respond to any questions, or that there is any obligation to engage in an explicit discussion with the community.

But just because they don't "come out and talk," it doesn't mean they aren't listening. It doesn't mean they hate you. It doesn't mean your ideas, feedback, or suggestions aren't good. I've seen many of the "offers to talk," and they have usually been from those who wish to accuse developers, berate them, demand an apology, or to interrogate them. That is hardly what I would call a sincere "offer to talk". And if you honestly believe that they are obligated to respond, acknowledge, or agree with you just because "you pay them" (which is patently untrue, by the way), then you have much to learn about how media and creative industries work.

Then you havent seen many. i read many well thought out, honest, fair posts even of academic quality. If this are not an offer to talk i dont know. Maybe you read to much of the rumblings, but im shure fans asked in all different ways almost the same questions again and again. Non of them answered. Not in the slightest. 
 
"obligation to engage in explicit discussion"? Since when did the developer/consumer dialog became such a chore.
You almost sound like a lawyer. 

What happend to the open dialog between fans and developers? 

And the other parts of your post, i dont know, you obviously mixing different user opinions and apply them to one.  






 

[upsettingshorts]

I doubt it was a lie, more likely it was a misunderstanding.

If BioWare believed that the Best Ending was Synthesis, then claiming it is possible to get the best ending with single player only is not a lie, because by that standard you can.

The trouble is fans believed the Shepard Lives Easter Egg possible after Destroy is the Best Ending.

That's not a lie, it's a misunderstanding.

There's no way to dispute this explanation unless you don't believe it's possible for BioWare to have believed Synthesis was the best ending, which is... kind of stupid considering how transparently obvious their belief in this is.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 décembre 2012 - 11:07 .

[Jadebaby]

Ninja Stan wrote...
If a given person says they want to see X in a game, and another person says they want to see Y, not X, in the game, which one do the developers listen to? No matter which one they pick, they will disappoint someone. Now, imagine that, instead of two people with two options, there are 100 people with 100 options. How do you propose a game developer, any game developer, succeed in pleasing everyone on this spectrum that can have mutually exclusive and contradictory wants or needs?

Is this what they tried to do with the ME3 endings? And not giving Shepard a clear-cut survive ending because they think it would lower the attraction of other endings?

Because if so, I don't understand this thought process.

Dragon Age Origins had a clear-cut survive ending and a sacrifice ending. And I know a lot of people that go back and play it again and make that ultimate sacrifice because it adds weight and emotion into the ending. A live ending and a die ending can be just as great as each other, should they be done right.

[Jadebaby]

@viva, this is how I see it, (could be entirely wrong)

Consumer money goes to EA, EA funds BioWare projects, consumers buy BioWare products. Repeat.

[dorktainian]

no games company in their right mind would purposely honk off their fan base. they like your money. if they want more of your money they have to listen to feedback. i know damn well that if one of my customers identified a problem it would be noted. if then more customers came up to me and highlighted the same problem i would be very concerned from a business point of view and would investigate the problem as a matter of urgency and put measures into place if necessary to prevent the problem occuring again.

Thats the business perspective. it must be really difficult for bioware at the moment because on one hand they have the story, on the other they have customers that feel their product is not up to scratch. how do they approach this? do they look at it from a business perspective or a story perspective?  they are not going to be able to please everyone.  those that love the ending will be put out, and then the cycle of hate will start all over again.

Modifié par dorktainian, 29 décembre 2012 - 11:21 .

[Kentation]

Seems we're getting off topic a bit here. By the way thanks for clearing things up and great arguments Ninja Stan lol

Anyway, a reply to OP here, I would generally feel bad for offering bad criticism to a game, I would generally look at the bright side, emphasise the positives of a game unless the game was designed to be crap then I would not feel bad.

[fiendishchicken]

BW has shown over the past year how (un)receptive to criticism they have been.

Why do I constantly postulate it then? Part arrogance, part idealism, part hope that BW might start to listen to what the people have to say.

I think BW has forgotten that a lot of people, after having made their own story for Shepard over the last 2 games, wanted to have their Shepard as their Shepard. I, and many other BW fans, can't say that it was about our Shepard's so much as it was what BW wanted. I wanted something different from what BW wanted for Shepard, and as an RPG where I get to tell my Shepard's story, I should've been able to.

[crimzontearz]

Ninja Stan wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

1 they lied about MP, knowingly and I have an apology from Brenon Holmes to prove it. and even assuming it was all a misunderstanding they never even begun to publicly acknowledge it all while Chris simply,y went on saying it was being investigated (and there really was nothing to investigate)

You mean the EMS and MP being required? Okay, I'll give you that. That's one thing they may have "knowingly lied about pre-release." What else? You claimed there were "many" things.

No ABC endings. And I consider willingly use of misleading to equate to lying. Ultimately if their conscience does not hurt from this I guess they will first in swimmingly with EA

I can only respond to the arguments you actually present. I can't read your mind to determine what you really mean. but again, Casey and Mac are two of the most important people on the project. So yes, you can absolutely disagree with the decisions they made. You can absolutely think they did bad jobs. But they still can't "hijack" their own project.

from this very thread AND what my interlocutor was responding to

crimzontearz wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

vivaladricas wrote...

They got paid well, really well I am sure. If I am raking in that cash I am a happy camper. Wrong business if they don't want criticism, a lot bigger people in media and arts take it and expect it.

ADD:  I found a lot of the critiques fine and intelligent, the nastiness more often was forum people going at each other. 

These people keep trash talking the devs though.  The developers are the programmers - they did an almost perfect job.  I am proud of them on behalf of the software engineering profession of which I am a part.  While the devs undoubtedly have a hand in content and want it to be great, that interest is nothing compared to how much they care about the code.  They will gladly let someone else totally dictate contact so that their program is beautiful on the inside and flawless on the outside.  Any blame needs to go to the writers, the application managers, and the producers.  (Many people have been considerate and directed their criticism at the appropriate parties rather than the devs, and their thoughtfulness is noted).

Despite all the slash-and-burn criticism, ME3 was the best game to hit the market in any genre since ME2, and that's a fact.

PS - @Bioware: MORE MEERSHEPLOO!

and that is why I idolize Brenon Holmes but want to see Mac Walters and Casey Hudson either terminated or put in a position that holds no creative influence over future games

no need to read minds, merely pay attention.

they produced the endings in a vacuum with no peer reviews, I consider that hijacking. Sure it us theirs, but is us also the other writers

Have you ever made a wrong decision? Then you can't really be relied upon to make unerringly accurate predictions, right? And you're not the only person who has an opinion on the endings, right? I would submit that your ideas of what would make "a LOT of people happy" or at least tolerate is as valid as anyone else's, including the developers'. This is a simple matter of disagreeing with a game or story decision.

they had ****loads of data from NUMEROUS polls and threads including internal ones. Nearly unanimously those who understood there was not going to be a rewrite after such as specified asked for a CLEAR reunion scene.....or a successful refusal. Result? no reunion scene AND Refusal is not even a real ending

awesome...who made that call again? what about the call to nit even give us concrete word of god?


and finally yes, my position is crystal clear and the more people I can dissuade from currently supporting bioware the better

[upsettingshorts]

There weren't any ABC endings. There were different flavors of A. Then they added a B in the Extended Cut.

[Dr_Extrem]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Is this what they tried to do with the ME3 endings? And not giving Shepard a clear-cut survive ending because they think it would lower the attraction of other endings?

Because if so, I don't understand this thought process.

Dragon Age Origins had a clear-cut survive ending and a sacrifice ending. And I know a lot of people that go back and play it again and make that ultimate sacrifice because it adds weight and emotion into the ending. A live ending and a die ending can be just as great as each other, should they be done right.

exactly .. the own company, showed, that it is possible.

granting the high ems destroy ending a shep-survival, could even be seen as an equaliser.

in control and synthesis, the reapers help rebuilding the relays (from both sides simultaneously) and anything else. in these endings, nobody except shepard is physically sacrificed. after the extended cut, those 2 endings look relatively bright and its ok.

destroy is the outlier ... in destroy we sacrifice the geth and edi, the relay network will take very long to be rebuild (we have to travel to the other sides as well) and shepard appears to die too. giving us the chance to see shaprd alive - definately - would be great. (it is even hinted with the breathe scene - why not go all the way?)


i think i just wrote a critique, that is not explicit. while a lot of people might not share this pov, it is not offending or aggressivly written. i only shared my pov.

the problem is, that if people write level headed critique and it lookes like, that it has been overslooked, people get frustrated over time. this frustratin is partially the fault of the silence on this board. if people get the impression, that they are not heard, they get louder. sadly, many forget their manners in the process.