298 réponses à ce sujet

[Ninja Stan]

Whole Particle wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

The best the dev team can do is guess, infer and assume what people are going to like. They would sacrifice something they think is cool for something the fans think is cool in a heartbeat, if they could easily include it in the game and it fits with everything else they're doing. Because they're not making the game for their own enjoyment. They're making the game to be sold to and enjoyed by gamers! Making a game that sells well is pretty much their only goal!

If this is the case then why not remove / rewrite aspects that caused such great divisions among the fanbase, writers, etc.? For example, the "Starchild" character immediately comes to mind to me.

Sure, but the game's already done and out. And if you go around changing stuff willy-nilly just because it's controversial, you could end up doing more harm than good. For example, just what would you replace Starchild with? And would that actually satisfy everyone? Or would it still be not good enough for some, and in addition upset those who didn't mind the Starchild or had "head-canoned" a perfectly good ending experience, as you young'uns say. Trying to fix everything never works, and is more likely to make things worse.

I'm not a professional writer or game developer, but I think just replacing a Kid that shows up in the last five minutes of the game (that I believe the vast majority of fans disliked) with a character such as Harbinger or someone wouldn't have been too difficult to change in the game via an aspect like the EC. Or was it already have been too late in the dev cycle to implement such story changes, contradict other aspects, narratives, etc.?

Usually, when fans hear about a feature, it's already been in development for some time. And of course, by the time you play the game, it's way too late to make all the changes you wished it had. That's the nature of the beast. That's why it's so important that, if you feel strongly about a game, you provide feedback in a way that doesn't drive your intended audience away.

As for the game's ending, I am half of the opinion that nothing BioWare came up with would have sufficed for some folks. The other half of the opinion is that there was one magical story point that would have solved everything and pleased everyone, if only they had discovered it.

[Meltemph]

As for the game's ending, I am half of the opinion that nothing BioWare came up with would have sufficed for some folks. The other half of the opinion is that there was one magical story point that would have solved everything and pleased everyone, if only they had discovered it.

Honestly, imo, if the ending was smaller in scope, and was more of an island unto itself, and left the setting itself in tact, the ending could have been very subpar, and I think people would have been ok with it.  Because the characters and the setting pieces(genophage/Geth&Quarian Conflict/ect) were so well done if they were left in a somewhat similar environment from where we 1st began the series, I think peopel would have been ok with the ending.

That ending really is the equivalent to the spellplague for the forgotten realms, either you are going to be fine/like it or it is going to have you pull away from the setting.

Modifié par Meltemph, 08 janvier 2013 - 03:22 .

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

As for the game's ending, I am half of the opinion that nothing BioWare came up with would have sufficed for some folks. The other half of the opinion is that there was one magical story point that would have solved everything and pleased everyone, if only they had discovered it.

Honestly, imo, if the ending was smaller in scope, and was more of an island unto itself, yet left the setting itself in tact, the ending could have been very subpar, and I think people would have been ok with it.  Because the characters and the setting pieces(genophage/Geth&Quarian Conflict/ect) were so well done if they were were left in a somewhat similar environment from where we 1st began, I think peopel would have been ok with the ending.

That ending really is the equivalent to the spellplague for the forgotten realms, either you are going to be fine/like it or it is going to have you pull away from the setting.

ME2 pulled away from the setting entirely, though. That worked out well.
Honestly, I doubt that the endings of the original Derk Energy theroy endings would have been any less phryic victories. And phryic vistories were all anyone could possibly expect from this war, against something like the Reapers.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 08 janvier 2013 - 03:24 .

[Meltemph]

silverexile17s wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

As for the game's ending, I am half of the opinion that nothing BioWare came up with would have sufficed for some folks. The other half of the opinion is that there was one magical story point that would have solved everything and pleased everyone, if only they had discovered it.

Honestly, imo, if the ending was smaller in scope, and was more of an island unto itself, yet left the setting itself in tact, the ending could have been very subpar, and I think people would have been ok with it.  Because the characters and the setting pieces(genophage/Geth&Quarian Conflict/ect) were so well done if they were were left in a somewhat similar environment from where we 1st began, I think peopel would have been ok with the ending.

That ending really is the equivalent to the spellplague for the forgotten realms, either you are going to be fine/like it or it is going to have you pull away from the setting.

ME2 pulled away from the setting entirely, though. That worked out well.

It didnt pull away from the setting, they did what I was advocating with ME3, that the main plot was an island unto itself, which was what ME2 was.  You had the main plot(the collectors) and then you had all the side plots and story progressions(collecting your team and learning about the galaxy you were playing in). 

Modifié par Meltemph, 08 janvier 2013 - 03:24 .

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

As for the game's ending, I am half of the opinion that nothing BioWare came up with would have sufficed for some folks. The other half of the opinion is that there was one magical story point that would have solved everything and pleased everyone, if only they had discovered it.

Honestly, imo, if the ending was smaller in scope, and was more of an island unto itself, yet left the setting itself in tact, the ending could have been very subpar, and I think people would have been ok with it.  Because the characters and the setting pieces(genophage/Geth&Quarian Conflict/ect) were so well done if they were were left in a somewhat similar environment from where we 1st began, I think peopel would have been ok with the ending.

That ending really is the equivalent to the spellplague for the forgotten realms, either you are going to be fine/like it or it is going to have you pull away from the setting.

ME2 pulled away from the setting entirely, though. That worked out well.

It didnt pull away from the setting, they did what I was advocating with ME3, that the main plot was an island unto itself, which was what ME2 was.  You had the main plot(the collectors) and then you had all the side plots and story progressions(collecting your teams and learning about the galaxy you were playing in). 

But ME2 was utterly divorced from the story set up in ME1. It had nothing to do with fighting the Reapers. It was one big side-quest.
Stop the Collector abuctions. That had nothing to do with preping for the invasion.
Not to mention the "Shepard revived from brain-death, Cerberus and Geth are good guys," and "Reapers are grown from liquidated DNA" plots.
Compared to those, and coupled with the facts I showed you on the ME wiki, I'm surprised you think the Crucible is so impossible.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 08 janvier 2013 - 03:28 .

[Meltemph]

 

But ME2 was utterly divorced from the story set up in ME1. It had nothing to do with fighting the Reapers. It was one big side-quest. 
Not to mention the "Shepard revived from brain-death, Cerberus and Geth are good guys," and "Reapers are grown from liquidated DNA" plots. 

I'm assuming you dont know what I mean when I say setting?  Forgotten Realms is a setting, no matter what story you read about Elminster, unless they are using him to change the setting as a whole, is normally a story unto itself.  While I didnt like the main plot in ME2(Reaper baby, undead shep,and whatnot) the setting wasnt altered in some irrevokable way that changed its face(the spellplague being a very good example of what I am talking about).

Compared to those, and coupled with the facts I showed you on the ME wiki, I'm surprised you think the Crucible is so impossible.

As for this part, I'm not going to talk to you about it, because it is very clear you didnt understand the points I was making, when talking about Javik.  I have no interest in having a discussion with you in this, when it is clear you dont or cant acknowledge what I was talking about, in reference to the wiki piece you posted.  If you want to try and talk to someone about that, I would suggest trying to find someone else, because I wont jump back in it with you. Either there is a language barrier between us(I'm assuming, since you didnt know what I meant when I was talking about the ME setting) or you just refuse to acknowledge what I am saying, either way there really isnt a way from me to have much of a discussion with you about it.

Modifié par Meltemph, 08 janvier 2013 - 03:34 .

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

 

But ME2 was utterly divorced from the story set up in ME1. It had nothing to do with fighting the Reapers. It was one big side-quest. 
Not to mention the "Shepard revived from brain-death, Cerberus and Geth are good guys," and "Reapers are grown from liquidated DNA" plots. 

I'm assuming you dont know what I mean when I say setting?  Forgotten Realms is a setting, no matter what story you read about Elminster, unless they are using him to change the setting as a whole, is normally a story unto itself.  While I didnt like the main plot in ME2(Reaper baby, undead shep,and whatnot) the setting wasnt altered in some irrevokable way that changed its face(the spellplague being a very good example of what I am talking about).

Compared to those, and coupled with the facts I showed you on the ME wiki, I'm surprised you think the Crucible is so impossible.

As for this part, I'm not going to talk to you about it, because it is very clear you didnt understand the points I was making, when talking about Javik.  I have no interest in having a discussion with you in this, when it is clear you dont or cant acknowledge what I was talking about, in reference to the wiki piece you posted.  If you want to try and talk to someone about that, I would suggest trying to find someone else, because I wont jump back in it with you. Either there is a language barrier between us(I'm assuming, since you didnt know what I meant when I was talking about the ME setting) or you just refuse to acknowledge what I am saying, either way there really isnt a way from me to have much of a discussion with you about it.

I don't really see the setting as that relevent. The setting isn't changing, so that's not a factor to begin with in this. It' not the important aspect - the story is. And the story was devorced from the original.

And you were the one that refused to acknolodge the truth that the Crucible was indeed possible, and didn't void the lore.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 08 janvier 2013 - 07:03 .

[Whole Particle]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Sure, but the game's already done and out. And if you go around changing stuff willy-nilly just because it's controversial, you could end up doing more harm than good. For example, just what would you replace Starchild with? And would that actually satisfy everyone? Or would it still be not good enough for some, and in addition upset those who didn't mind the Starchild or had "head-canoned" a perfectly good ending experience, as you young'uns say. Trying to fix everything never works, and is more likely to make things worse.

I get that the game was already developed, released, etc. I was just thinking of examples that wouldn't require a massive, possibly harmful change, and not be difficult to alter an aspect that only had an affect on the very end of the game.

Personally, I would have liked to see Vigil fill that role (even wrote some ideas / fanfic about how that could be implemented a little while ago). Would that satisfy everyone? Probably not. Are there still holes in the modified story that should be filled and fleshed out? Yes, as it's really only a rough draft / outline. Would it upset Starchild fans? Likely, however I personally haven't seen or read very many, if any, posts that support the "Kid" in that role. (Not to confuse the two, where I'm referring strictly to the character of the Starchild itself, rather than the concept of the Catalyst, or even the endings themselves.)

Ninja Stan wrote...
Usually, when fans hear about a feature, it's already been in development for some time. And of course, by the time you play the game, it's way too late to make all the changes you wished it had. That's the nature of the beast. That's why it's so important that, if you feel strongly about a game, you provide feedback in a way that doesn't drive your intended audience away.

As for the game's ending, I am half of the opinion that nothing BioWare came up with would have sufficed for some folks. The other half of the opinion is that there was one magical story point that would have solved everything and pleased everyone, if only they had discovered it.

True that it takes a lot of time and hard work to create and develop, and I wasn't trying to diminish the amount of effort that goes into the entire process.

And while not the biggest fan of the endings in their current state myself (although I do enjoy the possible IT factor to them), I do understand that it's impossible to write something which pleases everyone.

I am however of the opinion that the backlash the endings received would never have been as severe as they were if more members of the Bioware team would have just interacted a bit more with the fans through BSN, Twitter, etc. That's definitely not to take away from what guys like you and Chris do for the community (surely couldn't imagine what it takes to handle such roles and responsibilities myself  ), I just think many people at the time wanted to have more feedback and communication with the people that did the writing and developing, get their perspective on things, etc. Basically I believe the fans that disliked the endings just wanted more reassurance knowing that they were being listened to and that BW hadn't completely ignored and forgotten about them.

[elitecom]

silverexile17s wrote...
Javik himself says that the protheans learned ahead of time about the Reaper's arrival. If they did it, it is concevible that others out of the thousands of cycles must have too.
I just posted a responce to all that against someone else, you can read that.

Also, I remind you that Ilos was as much a rumor as the Crucible, therefore, none had nay solid proof of the other. It's also possible that Vigil was an isolated system, with limited information on the subject. Not to mention that Vigil was cut off the moment the Reapers attacked, and was in stasis mode for the hundreds of years that the war persisted. Therefore, Vigil may have been totally unaware of the Crucible becasue it was cut from the info network the split-second the Reapers invaded. Also, it could not have known because it may have been  a compartmentilized project, like Ilos itself was.
Therefore, just because Vigil didin't mention the Crucible, does not in any way indicate when the Crucible project was started.

To be honest I didn't know Javik said that, or maybe I just forgot, either way I read the Wiki and what's written there makes even less sense. There it is written that the Protheans learned about the Reapers in advance and started to work on several counter measures, like the Crucible, yet Vigil never mentions it! Ergo no one on Ilos knew about it, yet you'd expect a top secret research facility like Ilos to know about those things. 

Ilos was a top secret research facility, that doesn't mean that it was completely cut-off from the rest of the Prothean civilsation, it was cut off when the Reapers attacked. So the Protheans discovered the Crucible in between that second when the Reapers attcked? See, I don't buy it. And that still doesn't answer how the Protheans transmitted that information from one star system to another after the Reapers attacked.

[silverexile17s]

elitecom wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...
Javik himself says that the protheans learned ahead of time about the Reaper's arrival. If they did it, it is concevible that others out of the thousands of cycles must have too.
I just posted a responce to all that against someone else, you can read that.

Also, I remind you that Ilos was as much a rumor as the Crucible, therefore, none had nay solid proof of the other. It's also possible that Vigil was an isolated system, with limited information on the subject. Not to mention that Vigil was cut off the moment the Reapers attacked, and was in stasis mode for the hundreds of years that the war persisted. Therefore, Vigil may have been totally unaware of the Crucible becasue it was cut from the info network the split-second the Reapers invaded. Also, it could not have known because it may have been  a compartmentilized project, like Ilos itself was.
Therefore, just because Vigil didin't mention the Crucible, does not in any way indicate when the Crucible project was started.

To be honest I didn't know Javik said that, or maybe I just forgot, either way I read the Wiki and what's written there makes even less sense. There it is written that the Protheans learned about the Reapers in advance and started to work on several counter measures, like the Crucible, yet Vigil never mentions it! Ergo no one on Ilos knew about it, yet you'd expect a top secret research facility like Ilos to know about those things. 

Ilos was a top secret research facility, that doesn't mean that it was completely cut-off from the rest of the Prothean civilsation, it was cut off when the Reapers attacked. So the Protheans discovered the Crucible in between that second when the Reapers attcked? See, I don't buy it. And that still doesn't answer how the Protheans transmitted that information from one star system to another after the Reapers attacked.

I don't think an isolated base like Ilos would be all that in-touch with something like the development of the Crucible, since it seems the Empire was quite compartmentilized in terms of research. Say the Crucible was as secret a project as the Conduit. It would make sence to hide the existance of both from everyone, even each other, in order to keep the work compartmentilized and secure.
Therefore, add that to how isolated Ilos was, and the staff not knowing about the Crucible would be expected.
And, from what Vigil says, it was built solely to monitor the staff in cryo. That in turn implys that Vigil was actually programed after Ilos went dark, so it would be unaware of anything that happened prior to the moment the scientists went into stasis. And since Ilos was cut off from the prothean information network the moment the Reapers invaded, that doesn't amount to much infirmation for Vigil to draw from, aside from the files on the Conduit project only. 
Also, Vigil states that it's memory is severly corrupted after 50,000 years on minimal power, so even base knolodge was unrecoverable, which is proven by Vigil's inabilaty to recall anything having to do with prothean culture. If it didn't even know that, the possibilaty of it knowing anything substancial about the war with the Reapers is slim. Add that to the above prospect that the Ilos staff had no knolodge of the Crucible, and volia. The prospect of Vigil knowing nothing on the Crucible's existance suddenly fits in perfectly with what we know.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 09 janvier 2013 - 01:13 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Ninja Stan wrote...

As for the game's ending, I am half of the opinion that nothing BioWare came up with would have sufficed for some folks. The other half of the opinion is that there was one magical story point that would have solved everything and pleased everyone, if only they had discovered it.

//Looks at fan's reaction to ME3 up until the ending...


No I think Bioware just dropped the ball at the end.  The vast majority (if not all) of the fan reviews I read seemed to all agree that ME3 was great up until that point.  Bioware can do it right.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 09 janvier 2013 - 11:27 .

[Ishiken]

Ninja Stan wrote...

As for the game's ending, I am half of the opinion that nothing BioWare came up with would have sufficed for some folks. The other half of the opinion is that there was one magical story point that would have solved everything and pleased everyone, if only they had discovered it.

Hmm let's see. The Shepard combines the Crucible and the Citadel and fires the weapon. Either the Crucible completely destroys all of the Reapers or disables their shields, which allows the galaxy flight to blow them up with Thanix Cannons. No need to introduce the Reaper AI or have Control or Synthesis as options. The ending epilogue would be a summary of the state of the galaxy races based upon all of your choices. The Krogan became a voice in galactic politics if you saved Wrex and Eve or the Krogan wishes to expand like they used to be if it was Wreav in charge. The entire story was presented as the need to destroy the Reapers. Shepard showed no inclination to side with the Illusive Man to try and see if it is possible to Control the Reapers, then suddenly in the last 10 minutes, the writers decided to kick the narrative out the door to try and make this is into some artistic vision. The problem was that they tried to make turn Mass Effect 3 into some artistic expression and failed to do it with a consistent narrative.

[elitecom]

silverexile17s wrote...
I don't think an isolated base like Ilos would be all that in-touch with something like the development of the Crucible, since it seems the Empire was quite compartmentilized in terms of research. Say the Crucible was as secret a project as the Conduit. It would make sence to hide the existance of both from everyone, even each other, in order to keep the work compartmentilized and secure.
Therefore, add that to how isolated Ilos was, and the staff not knowing about the Crucible would be expected.
And, from what Vigil says, it was built solely to monitor the staff in cryo. That in turn implys that Vigil was actually programed after Ilos went dark, so it would be unaware of anything that happened prior to the moment the scientists went into stasis. And since Ilos was cut off from the prothean information network the moment the Reapers invaded, that doesn't amount to much infirmation for Vigil to draw from, aside from the files on the Conduit project only. 
Also, Vigil states that it's memory is severly corrupted after 50,000 years on minimal power, so even base knolodge was unrecoverable, which is proven by Vigil's inabilaty to recall anything having to do with prothean culture. If it didn't even know that, the possibilaty of it knowing anything substancial about the war with the Reapers is slim. Add that to the above prospect that the Ilos staff had no knolodge of the Crucible, and volia. The prospect of Vigil knowing nothing on the Crucible's existance suddenly fits in perfectly with what we know.

You don't think an isolated base like Ilos would be all that in-touch with somethine like the development of the Crucible, but do you know that? That's the thing, you don't know for sure and neither do I. However I perfer to discuss using arguments which I know are supported by in-game events and conversations. Now we can go on and speculate forever and ever about what might have happened, but we would not get anywhere and that we must actually resort to speculation is in itself a testament to how discontinuous the Crucible plot is when you try to fit it in with what we know from Mass Effect 1. 

All right I'll comment on the Prothean Empire being compartmentalised in terms of its research. So let's say that that the Crucible research was being conducted on some Prothean planet. Then when the Reapers attacked and crippled Prothean communications and transportation, how did information about the Crucible spread around from Thessia to Mars? 

[AlexMBrennan]

And here I thought that test-screenings we common in the production in movies, but Stan's comments clearly show that this would be impossible.

They're making the game to be sold to and enjoyed by gamers! Making a game that sells well is pretty much their only goal!

Hang on, I thought the party line was that Bioware works primarily to realise their artistic vision? Maybe I've just read Dr Muzyka's blog post wrong.

In any, case it's a pretty rare opinion since the vast majority of thief gaming press in support of Bioware and the ME3 endings very emphatically denies this, insisting that incorporating fan feedback would set a bad precedent and spell the end of the medium (conveniently ignoring the fact that Bioware has always done just that as far back as BG - I wonder if any of them complained about Imoen not dying in Spellhold? Or about her presence in the games in the first place - she was added since play testers didn't like the lack of good-aligned thieves)

[AlexMBrennan]

Sorry, iPad doesn't seem to like editing posts today. What a huge surprise...

The best the dev team can do is guess, infer and assume what people are going to like

Well, that's more an admission of failure of market research than an excuse; I find it hard to believe that many other companies develop products by just guessing what people might want. Maybe I've been watching to much The Apprentice (British version).

Edit to add: if your focus group unanimously liked the idea of three literally identical pallete-swapped ending cinematics, then your sample might not be all that representative or unbiased. 

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 09 janvier 2013 - 05:15 .

[silverexile17s]

elitecom wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...
I don't think an isolated base like Ilos would be all that in-touch with something like the development of the Crucible, since it seems the Empire was quite compartmentilized in terms of research. Say the Crucible was as secret a project as the Conduit. It would make sence to hide the existance of both from everyone, even each other, in order to keep the work compartmentilized and secure.
Therefore, add that to how isolated Ilos was, and the staff not knowing about the Crucible would be expected.
And, from what Vigil says, it was built solely to monitor the staff in cryo. That in turn implys that Vigil was actually programed after Ilos went dark, so it would be unaware of anything that happened prior to the moment the scientists went into stasis. And since Ilos was cut off from the prothean information network the moment the Reapers invaded, that doesn't amount to much infirmation for Vigil to draw from, aside from the files on the Conduit project only. 
Also, Vigil states that it's memory is severly corrupted after 50,000 years on minimal power, so even base knolodge was unrecoverable, which is proven by Vigil's inabilaty to recall anything having to do with prothean culture. If it didn't even know that, the possibilaty of it knowing anything substancial about the war with the Reapers is slim. Add that to the above prospect that the Ilos staff had no knolodge of the Crucible, and volia. The prospect of Vigil knowing nothing on the Crucible's existance suddenly fits in perfectly with what we know.

You don't think an isolated base like Ilos would be all that in-touch with somethine like the development of the Crucible, but do you know that? That's the thing, you don't know for sure and neither do I. However I perfer to discuss using arguments which I know are supported by in-game events and conversations. Now we can go on and speculate forever and ever about what might have happened, but we would not get anywhere and that we must actually resort to speculation is in itself a testament to how discontinuous the Crucible plot is when you try to fit it in with what we know from Mass Effect 1. 

All right I'll comment on the Prothean Empire being compartmentalised in terms of its research. So let's say that that the Crucible research was being conducted on some Prothean planet. Then when the Reapers attacked and crippled Prothean communications and transportation, how did information about the Crucible spread around from Thessia to Mars? 

It's a streatch of personal opinion, but....
Perhaps Mars was where constrcution began?
And then the protheans moved (or attempted to move) the Crucible around, since a moving target is harder to hit.
Or perhapse vice-versa with Thessia?
Or maybe the data on the Crucible was implanted in the Thessia beacon spicifically becasue the asari were the prothean's chosen race.

Or perhaps after the Crucible failed to be deployed, the survivors of the project came to Mars to hide the data?
There are alot of possibilaties, but sadly, I have no substancial evidence.

However, for the case of Ilos, Vigil's testimant of being programed to monitor the stasis pods is indictive it being built after the Ilos facilaty went dark. And since the local computers would be likely to only have Conduit project-related data on them, any true infromation of events beyond Ilos that superceed the Reaper's taking of the Citidel would be speculatory. Also, as Vigil is aware of the Reaper's taking the Citidel, it would indicate that the scientists informed it of all they knew, which was not appearantly much.  Therefore, this would in turn seem to indicate that the scientists didn't know of the Crucible themselves, as Vigil was likely aware of the same level of information they were, and since Vigil didn't know, it's likely the scientists didn't either.

Although this is only speculation.

Therefore, the most that can be diffinitively said, is that Vigils lack of information on the Crucible doesn't void the lore.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 09 janvier 2013 - 08:16 .

[Xamufam]

Don't think so

[KevShep]

Ninja Stan wrote...


As for the game's ending, I am half of the opinion that nothing BioWare came up with would have sufficed for some folks. The other half of the opinion is that there was one magical story point that would have solved everything and pleased everyone, if only they had discovered it.

 
(Sarcasm) Yeah, and an exact copy and paste ending of Deus Ex was perfect for the ending of ME3 that no one would have hated or could have seen that it was a VERY bad idea...who knew?

You say that no matter what people were going to hate it? I say that is a scapegoat.

There were just too many obvious things in the last 10 minutes of the ending that makes that scapegoat response from Bioware fall on deaf ears.  No offence.

Ive had this discussion with you before Ninja Stan, If the Bioware writer(s) were writing from the perspective of the gamer in mind (no matter how different WE are) they (the writer(s)) would have cought alot of MAJOR details in the writing early on.   Its the simple fact that the writer(s) forgot the bare basics of writing itself...Keeping story/lore/plot integrity intact.  They were writing from the writers perspective instead of the gamers perspective.

Example : Todd Howard at Bethesda listened to a writer tell what he wanted in the game(Skyrim) and Todd stopped him the the middle and asked the writer "what is the gamer feeling, what is the gamer thinking and most importantly...what is the gamer doing here in this part? The writer did not have an answer and Todd told him to start over.------This came from a tweet by that very writer(dont remember his name).

I mentioned that we are all different in our opinions and views however there are some things that we are like minded on (as you guys NOW clearly see) as you guys will see a few VERY common reasons why(its the little things that have a Mass Effect). Its not hard to make an ending that most of us would like. It was not that our expectations were far reaching, it was because of bad writing in the last 10 minutes and nothing more.

Modifié par KevShep, 11 janvier 2013 - 01:04 .

[silverexile17s]

The most that can be said is that the Crucible's existance doesn't void the lore by existing.
However, if you ask me, the concept and general introduction of it into the plot felt rushed and awkward.
I mean, finding in right on your friggin doorstep RIGHT as the Reapers attack?
I don't think BioWare paced that right. If it had been hinted at in ME2, or in a DLC before ME3, then the Crucible wouldn't feel like such an awkward plot moment.
I know my crituqe isn't law, but in my opinion, as is, the way they did it, the whole "Reaper-killing doomsday weapon" suddenly coming out of nowhere is clumsy, and not the kind of stumble I'd expected in the plot development this late in the game.

[silverexile17s]

I also agree with @KevShep that, even though BioWare still has good points, that they, like many, could stand to learn a few things in writing and fan feedback responce from the Golden Age of Bethesda, which is still going strong.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 12 janvier 2013 - 07:25 .

[Indy_S]

silverexile17s wrote...

The most that can be said is that the Crucible's existance doesn't void the lore by existing.
However, if you ask me, the concept and general introduction of it into the plot felt rushed and awkward.
I mean, finding in right on your friggin doorstep RIGHT as the Reapers attack?
I don't think BioWare paced that right. If it had been hinted at in ME2, or in a DLC before ME3, then the Crucible wouldn't feel like such an awkward plot moment.
I know my crituqe isn't law, but in my opinion, as is, the way they did it, the whole "Reaper-killing doomsday weapon" suddenly coming out of nowhere is clumsy, and not the kind of stumble I'd expected in the plot development this late in the game.

I wonder if anybody told them that during development. It might have provided a bit of relief to some of the complaints we've seen on BSN.

[Ninja Stan]

AlexMBrennan wrote...
I find it hard to believe that many other companies develop products by just guessing what people might want. Maybe I've been watching to much The Apprentice (British version).

You find it that hard to believe? Then why does any television show ever get cancelled? Why does any film ever do poorly at the box office? Why is any videogame ever rated poorly? Why does any book get a bad review?

Books have been around for hundreds of years, and the stories told therein haven't really changed for thousands. Film is over 100 years old, and television is over 60. Even videogames are over 40 years old. So if creators are no longer guessing at what the audience will like, why do we get Twilight? And why is it still popular enough to get sequels, not to mention films? Why isn't every story a Harry Potter series? Why do we still get tons of different presentations of settings, characters, and plots, many of which fail to make money and/or be rated well, if audience likes are so predictable and known?

Edit to add: if your focus group unanimously liked the idea of three literally identical pallete-swapped ending cinematics, then your sample might not be all that representative or unbiased. 

I'm pretty sure videogame companies don't bring in nearly as many focus groups as movies do. Should they, though? That's debatable.

[Ninja Stan]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Hang on, I thought the party line was that Bioware works primarily to realise their artistic vision? Maybe I've just read Dr Muzyka's blog post wrong.

The term has often been used as an internet meme out of context. Some folks believe that the term was used to dismiss any and all negative criticism about the game. This is patently untrue. Ray used the term to support the work of the dev team of his own company in the wake of a lot of nastiness and extreme negativity in the forums and elsewhere.

In any, case it's a pretty rare opinion since the vast majority of thief gaming press in support of Bioware and the ME3 endings very emphatically denies this, insisting that incorporating fan feedback would set a bad precedent and spell the end of the medium (conveniently ignoring the fact that Bioware has always done just that as far back as BG - I wonder if any of them complained about Imoen not dying in Spellhold? Or about her presence in the games in the first place - she was added since play testers didn't like the lack of good-aligned thieves)

Incorporating fan feedback directly? Yes, it would set a bad precedent. Can you imagine doing your job once you showed your potential clients that you would take their feedback and implement it into the product? You'd get a jillion people demanding you do the same for them. In ME3's case, every pet theory, every plot that someone felt needed resolution, every favourite character that needed "just one more scene," every possible ending, would be demanded? And once you show that one person's feedback is directly incorporated, that turns into "BioWare will incorporate my idea."

And once that happens, you get, well, pretty much the same backlash the BSN got with the endings. Total chaos from people who are hurt, disappointed that their expectations weren't met, accusations of BioWare lying to their fanbase, BioWare shamed and insulted for not listening, devs being called lazy and incompetent, calls for the firing of the devs, and you know the rest.

What BioWare has done in the past, from what I've seen, is to take some good ideas directly but also some of the more interesting ideas (because hey, why not?), talk about them, come up with other ideas that may be inspired by them or related to them, talk about them, and then coming up with a few game ideas based on that. And not even necessarily for inclusion in the very next game. Maybe it's an idea for two games down the line, or a "holy crap, if only we could do this..." kind of idea.

Taking ideas and suggestions and incorporating them as-is is, in my opinion, not a very good idea for any creator.

[Outsider edge]

Ninja Stan wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...
I find it hard to believe that many other companies develop products by just guessing what people might want. Maybe I've been watching to much The Apprentice (British version).

You find it that hard to believe? Then why does any television show ever get cancelled? Why does any film ever do poorly at the box office? Why is any videogame ever rated poorly? Why does any book get a bad review?

Books have been around for hundreds of years, and the stories told therein haven't really changed for thousands. Film is over 100 years old, and television is over 60. Even videogames are over 40 years old. So if creators are no longer guessing at what the audience will like, why do we get Twilight? And why is it still popular enough to get sequels, not to mention films? Why isn't every story a Harry Potter series? Why do we still get tons of different presentations of settings, characters, and plots, many of which fail to make money and/or be rated well, if audience likes are so predictable and known?

Edit to add: if your focus group unanimously liked the idea of three literally identical pallete-swapped ending cinematics, then your sample might not be all that representative or unbiased. 

I'm pretty sure videogame companies don't bring in nearly as many focus groups as movies do. Should they, though? That's debatable.

As the budgets get higher so do the risks involved.

Bioware's current situation is somewhat similar too Walt Disney and Pixar when it comes too movies. Pixar for a long time was regarded as the golden boy of cinema. Every movie they made was a critical and commercial succes. Because of that Walt Disney their parent company greenlit any project they put forward and never questioned them. And then Pixar made Cars 2. An alright movie but definately not of the same quality as their previous efforts and the movie subsequently dissapointed both critically aswell commercially eventhough it was pushed by a very heavy pr campaign.

Compare this too Bioware from let's say 3 years ago. At that time Bioware was at the peak of the videaogame market. They were the golden boys riding on the curtail of Mass Effect 2 gobbling up all the Goty awards, having released the critically and commercially succesfull DA:O and having the most anticipated MMO since WoW in production named SW:ToR. At that time Bioware could have done anything and EA would have greenlighted it without hassle. Something like that Jason Bourne type RPG would have gotten a budget instead of being cancelled. Things have changed drastically though and Bioware are now like a post-cars 2 Pixar.

The stakes have gotten alot higher for Bioware. I personally can't remember a movie franchise or game franchise that survived two dissapointing entries. Although it's questionable if Mass Effect 3 can be regarded in such a way it's definately the case for Dragon age 2. For the new Dragon Age (and perhaps the new Mass Effect) now is not the time too push the envelope. If DA:inquisition is a succes then the IP is saved and Bioware can afford too break barriers with the next game since it will have a succesfull predecessor. If DA:Inquisition fails however then the IP can be considered death in the water and i seriously doubt EA will fund anymore forays into that universe.

Bioware would be wise too do extensive focustesting in the future. If only too minimize risks since their status isn't as golden as it was some years ago.

Modifié par Outsider edge, 12 janvier 2013 - 12:00 .

[JamesFaith]

Outsider edge wrote...
I personally can't remember a movie franchise or game franchise that survived two dissapointing entries.

Tombraider?