390 réponses à ce sujet

[Indy_S]

If it comes across as a 'you lied to us' statement, it doesn't make the forum less hate-filled. Asking them to clarify is constructive, I agree with that, but an accusatory tone (even if unintentional) does not come across well to the developers.

[Outsider edge]

Well the "no A, B, C endings" quote can be looked at from different angles. If you take it litteraly and look at the Crucible options at the end it definately looks like just three options. But perhaps they meant the differences between low and high EMS endings or the earlier resolutions of the genophage and the Geth-Quarian conflict.

The quote in question was said when the PR blitz for Mass Effect 3 was at it's highest. Now i can imagine it's quite difficult if you have too show up at different gameshows, website interviews and what not and always have too drop a "hot" statement too keep the buzz going. Perhaps in their views Mass Effect 3 didn't have an ABC ending because they looked at it differently.

However i agree this is one debate they could have easily difused if they came out with their interpretation of that quote instead of remaining silent and let the anti-enders run away with it.

[Clayless]

Thing is if you actually look at the full quote:

Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.

It’s more like there are some really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things, lots of things about who lives and who dies, civilizations that rose and fell, all the way down to individual characters. That becomes the state of where you left your galaxy. The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them. It would be interesting to see if somebody could put together a chart for that. Even with Mass Effect 2’s...

It's clear he's talking about all the many differences the game could have by the end. How there can be "lots of really obvious things that are different and then lots and lots of smaller things". He talks about civilisations that rose and fell all the way down to individual characters, all in a response to a question about how different the end of ME2 can be.

A lot of people like to misquote him because the best way to show someone is lying is to lie, apparently.

Though I do agree they could've diffused it by clarifying that to all the people who were deliberately misquoting him, but chances are whatever they said would've been used against them and turned into a meme, so I don't blame them.

Modifié par Robosexual, 20 janvier 2013 - 11:39 .

[Indy_S]

It was a silly thing to say, in retrospect. I thought it would have been obvious that different plotlines would end in a possible choice. That's how it worked in ME1, Feros, Noveria and Virmire ended in choices. In ME2, most of the loyalty missions had a choice. It's no stretch to assume things like the genophage and geth/quarian conflict would end in a choice.

[Clayless]

Yeah, but because of the misquoting a lot of people do (there's a reason they leave out the second paragraph) it looks like he was talking directly about the end of the game, rather than the end state of the game.

The reason this info isn't well known is because it's drowned out deliberately. It's why I've been told quite a few times that I'm making it up when I quote that Childs Play statement (it was drowned out because it shed the Retake movement in a less than positive light) or why far too many people believe the point blank made-up quotes in that "epic" thread. People just want to mindlessly bash Bioware, and because of that a lot of information is lost.

Modifié par Robosexual, 20 janvier 2013 - 11:55 .

[78stonewobble]

Well for future reference:

Don't promise things you can't deliver.

Be clear and concise in communication.

Leave as little room for misinterpretation of information as possible.

It's pretty prudent for all of us actually.

And... misunderstandings on the part of the sender and receiver of information happens everyday and every where.



PS: ... IMHO PR (and politics) should allways be taken with a grain of salt.

With that in mind I find it too nitpicking to try to pin a "lie" on bioware and... Irrelevant to making the games themselves any better.

At best it will make bioware more precise in public statements and slightly better communication but how is that exactly gonna make for better games in itself? 

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 20 janvier 2013 - 12:09 .

[AlexMBrennan]

If it comes across as a 'you lied to us' statement, it doesn't make the forum less hate-filled

I am so sorry for not accepting being lied to as part of acceptable marketing. Evidently, Advertising Standard Agency doesn't exist on your planet.

Fact is they made untrue statements about their product. Fact is that companies are not allowed to make untrue or unproven statements to promote their product.
What is there to argue about?

If Bioware had said "ME3 cures cancer", you'd have agreed that that's out of order. Yet, you are perfectly fine with Bioware saying that Reapers can win (not in the shipped game, and arguably not with EC installed either) and that the Rachni play a big role in ME3. Where's the difference, exactly?

I'm not asking for the impossible, but if you claim to be selling cheeseburgers then there has to be cheese regardless of your culinary integrity. If you can't deliver the impossible, then don't claim otherwise. Duh.

[Indy_S]

Speculation has its place (not talking about the endings) but those are rules I can agree with.

[Clayless]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

If it comes across as a 'you lied to us' statement, it doesn't make the forum less hate-filled

I am so sorry for not accepting being lied to as part of acceptable marketing. Evidently, Advertising Standard Agency doesn't exist on your planet.

Fact is they made untrue statements about their product. Fact is that companies are not allowed to make untrue or unproven statements to promote their product.
What is there to argue about?

If Bioware had said "ME3 cures cancer", you'd have agreed that that's out of order. Yet, you are perfectly fine with Bioware saying that Reapers can win (not in the shipped game, and arguably not with EC installed either) and that the Rachni play a big role in ME3. Where's the difference, exactly?

I'm not asking for the impossible, but if you claim to be selling cheeseburgers then there has to be cheese regardless of your culinary integrity. If you can't deliver the impossible, then don't claim otherwise. Duh.

They clarified that "Reapers can win" statement within a few hours.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say people deliberately leave out information. Why, can I ask, did you do that?

[katamuro]

DinoSteve wrote...

Well is the statement there are no A B C endings not false? and how is asking them to clarify that statement not constructive? I am not shouting, posting images or posting statements full of bile, I would just like the statement clarified that is it, and that is just one example of information we were given before hand that proved not to be true.

Same for me. Sure I still dont like the endings and that is my right and I question why they decided to do so. Which is my reason for my posts speculating what exactly happened when they decided to do that. I think in all of my posts here I have not resorted to shouting, name calling or spitting bile. Neither have I called for anyones job. 

What I and many many others want to know is a pretty straightforward answer to a question:

What exactly led to their decision to standartise the ending? 
 
Why did devs said they were surprised by the reaction when it was clear on forums before the release that people expected something totally different?

These are questions that answer like "we just felt like that" . A true answer would include why such and ending was preferable by devs compared to more traditional ones.

[Indy_S]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

If it comes across as a 'you lied to us' statement, it doesn't make the forum less hate-filled

I am so sorry for not accepting being lied to as part of acceptable marketing. Evidently, Advertising Standard Agency doesn't exist on your planet.

Fact is they made untrue statements about their product. Fact is that companies are not allowed to make untrue or unproven statements to promote their product.
What is there to argue about?

If Bioware had said "ME3 cures cancer", you'd have agreed that that's out of order. Yet, you are perfectly fine with Bioware saying that Reapers can win (not in the shipped game, and arguably not with EC installed either) and that the Rachni play a big role in ME3. Where's the difference, exactly?

I'm not asking for the impossible, but if you claim to be selling cheeseburgers then there has to be cheese regardless of your culinary integrity. If you can't deliver the impossible, then don't claim otherwise. Duh.

I didn't say that you should accept being lied to. I said that accusing people of lying doesn't encourage them to talk. The issue with those claims can come up in discussion, you can ask about the original intention of the statements or if they regret making those statements. But accusing them of lying is not helping.

[wright1978]

I'd really like to know why they put no effort into building the endings into the narrative of the story. Did they really just arrive at the end without an ending and attach that horrendous bolt on affair.

[JamesFaith]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

If Bioware had said "ME3 cures cancer", you'd have agreed that that's out of order. Yet, you are perfectly fine with Bioware saying that Reapers can win (not in the shipped game, and arguably not with EC installed either) and that the Rachni play a big role in ME3. Where's the difference, exactly? 

In fact this is one of statement which offer more then one intepretation.

Some fans chose intepretation with cutscenes of Rachni fleet and similar things.

But isn't having own long mission big role? Drells haven't it, same like Hanars, Volus, Elcors, Vorchas. Only Council races + Krogans and Quarians have their own mission. From this perspective Rachni had one of bigger role in ME3.  

[Indy_S]

wright1978 wrote...

I'd really like to know why they put no effort into building the endings into the narrative of the story. Did they really just arrive at the end without an ending and attach that horrendous bolt on affair.

Accusing them of laziness doesn't help either. The ending feels disjointed, I agree, and I would like to know why as well.

[78stonewobble]

wright1978 wrote...

I'd really like to know why they put no effort into building the endings into the narrative of the story. Did they really just arrive at the end without an ending and attach that horrendous bolt on affair.

Personally? I think they put alot of effort into it and thought it was great.

Unfortunately people have different ideas about just what constitutes great. Very much based on their individual unique perspective of things.

Ie: Speeding...

If you live waaay out in the country where roads are straight, theres no one around for miles you would tend view a little speeding as a quite innocent thing.

If you live in a city you would view a guy blasting along with the same 90 mph as an irresponcible maniac and speeding as an abhorrent thing.

Presumably the endings made perfect sense from people within the gamedevelopment process and they were unable or unwilling to view them from other points of view.

For me on the outside and without the proper basis for a similar point of view? It was unintelligble.

EDIT: Note. If you walk around thinking: "Man this looks great." It's quite hard to, by yourself, to suddenly think: "Man this looks great but I'd better double check with others." It simply doesn't pop up in your mind.

Stuff like this happens. I'm just sad it happened here.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 20 janvier 2013 - 12:24 .

[ZLurps]

chemiclord wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

I still don't get this. So Hudson or Walters come here and chat with forumers. Then what?

It would be a bloodbath of hatred and venom from masses demanding apologies and reperations for the horrible slap in the face those two gave their honest and trusting and supportive fans; and if those two don't fix it immediately then the expressed hope that both will lose their jobs and be destitute for the rest of their lives.

That's not what I meant.

What I meant is that product is at it is. We can hate it, we can love it, we can talk all that with we can about what, how and why, and do that with or without devs but product is still going to be like it is.

Modifié par ZLurps, 20 janvier 2013 - 12:23 .

[Indy_S]

ZLurps wrote...

That's not what I meant.

What I meant is that product is at it is. We can hate it, we can love it, we can talk all that with we can about what, how and why and do that with or without devs but product is still going to be like it is.

The future projects are what is important to us, now. Encouraging critical thought, that is the goal here.

[geceka]

An important point of criticism is that the way it is voiced also gives away the kind of reaction you want to evoke – "What I do tells me what I seek" (Pierre Soulagnés).

As an example, if you accuse someone of a blatant lie, you have already dismissed the possibility of a misunderstanding or simply different views, you expect at least the admittance of the lie in question or maybe even an apology. The A, B, C ending trope is a case of this, where you can just as easily argue that there is no ABC because there are so many other decisions discounted for throughout the game that that each and every ABC ending again spans out into a multitude of different outcomes. Yet again, others might dismiss this and claim that "ending" can only refer to the last X minutes of the game, and there you get only these 3 choices. Both views have some validity to them.

However, phrasing your criticism as "you lied to me about ABC endings" vs. "Despite the fact that there are many choices throughout the game that affect the state of the galaxy as a whole, it still felt like an ABC ending to me" is vastly different. The former is confrontational and provokes a defensive response, whereas the latter is what I would call "constructive" criticism, especially if you flesh it out with additional reasons why you, personally, feel that way - something like "I'd liked to have more dialogue lines referring to previous choices to tie them back into the ending" or "it would have been cool if the Rachni were instrumental to rebuilding the damaged relays if they live", etc...

Maybe the core dilemma boils down to whether the writers "owe" you anything at this point or not. Realistically, they don't, it's as simple as that – You bought the game, and you can return it – That's the contract you have with them. What you can actually argue for is that – while they don't owe it to you – you would be thrilled to participate in a discussion with them. It's a wish you tell them and they can fulfill, but most obviously, it's not something you can extort out of them, when remaining silent is just as easy. When you mention things like how much money you paid for the games or whatever, you pull it down to a level of pure business, and in that respect, business with you has ended when you bought the game. Period.

From this follows that harsh, insulting criticism will probably not evoke the type of discussion you might be looking for (they'll simply stay away), or rephrasing that, if you want to have a chance at a proper discussion, don't be harsh and insulting.

[Clayless]

78stonewobble wrote...

For me on the outside and without the proper basis for a similar point of view? It was unintelligble.

Stuff like this happens. I'm just sad it happened here.

Not neccessarily true. I read the leaks for example and thought the ending sounded great. I then saw a more in-depth leak from a guy who playtested the game, 2 weeks before it came out, and that just made me even more excited.

Come the release and I was incredibly confused to what was happening, and I'm not the only one, there's a Forbes article with a guy thinking all the review bombing was because of trolls and then editing it detailing his confusion about where this hate is coming from.

Modifié par Robosexual, 20 janvier 2013 - 12:28 .

[Indy_S]

Excellently put.

[ZLurps]

Indy_S wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

That's not what I meant.

What I meant is that product is at it is. We can hate it, we can love it, we can talk all that with we can about what, how and why and do that with or without devs but product is still going to be like it is.

The future projects are what is important to us, now. Encouraging critical thought, that is the goal here.

In entertainment business there is one thing that matters, money. Would it really be too difficult to wait and check what's the word on the street (so to say) regarding DA3, for example?

[wright1978]

Indy_S wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

I'd really like to know why they put no effort into building the endings into the narrative of the story. Did they really just arrive at the end without an ending and attach that horrendous bolt on affair.

Accusing them of laziness doesn't help either. The ending feels disjointed, I agree, and I would like to know why as well.

Wouldn't say laziness. the query would be how much forethought/foreplanning went on. They've admitted not thinking ahead between games. Maybe they really came up with 3 endings at the start and always planned to introduce a plot device character in the final 5 minutes and thought it was brilliant idea and not disjointed from the narrative.

[78stonewobble]

Robosexual wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

For me on the outside and without the proper basis for a similar point of view? It was unintelligble.

Stuff like this happens. I'm just sad it happened here.

Not neccessarily true. I read the leaks for example and thought the ending sounded great. I then saw a more in-depth leak from a guy who playtested the game, 2 weeks before it came out, and that just made me even more excited.

Come the release and I was incredibly confused to what was happening, and I'm not the only one, there's a Forbes article with a guy thinking all the review bombing was because of trolls and then editing it detailing his confusion about where this hate is coming from.

Here I just meant that it's a very human thing to get so caught up in your own point of view that you forget to view it from others as well.

I don't know if thats what happened, but to me it seems as likely an explanation as any.

PS: You guys remember this video (and ignore the angry dude at the end)?


IMHO: there must have been some kind of disconnect between what was obvious for the guys making the game and this poor guy playing the game.

It rather well describes my confusion at the same moment.

I'm glad we got the EC to clear atleast some of these things up. That really really helped on that.

I just don't think we should have had to be that confused with the original ending.

Pondering what happened maybe, but not confused.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 20 janvier 2013 - 12:43 .

[Clayless]

78stonewobble wrote...

Here I just meant that it's a very human thing to get so caught up in your own point of view that you forget to view it from others as well.

I don't know if thats what happened, but to me it seems as likely an explanation as any.

PS: You guys remember this video (and ignore the angry dude at the end)?


IMHO: there must have been some kind of disconnect between what was obvious for the guys making the game and this poor guy playing the game.

It rather well describes my confusion at the same moment.

I'm glad we got the EC to clear atleast some of these things up. That really really helped on that.

I just don't think we should have had to be that confused with the original ending.

Pondering what happened maybe, but not confused.

Looking at that video it doesn't appear to be something you can explain. All I saw was a guy that ignored the Catalyst and wondered why he was confused, and then his brother started to, unecessarily, rile him up by asking him why he plays games.

Modifié par Robosexual, 20 janvier 2013 - 12:50 .

[TheRealJayDee]

drayfish wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

How are we supposed to keep threads open? I've experienced it more than once that what I'd consider a good thread with an interesting discussion got locked because some people behaved badly (and/or because a mod decided the discussion was over for other reasons). What am I to do about such things? Obviously the mods who closed down such a thread saw what was happpening and decided that locking it down was the best way to handle it. There's little I see we can do about it. Sure, I can tell people to act like the adults they're supposed to be, but what if they don't? The people that'd actually listen to such good advice usually aren't the ones that need it/the ones causing trouble.

So what are we realistically supposed to do against lockdowns resulting from the inevitable appearance of dedicated troublemakers or the behaviour of those who just don't care? Cause this punishes those really interested in constructive dialogue.

I would very much like to second these questions - but would like to add a little more of a pointed inquiry to the moderators, and the role that they play in allowing/discouraging legitimate debate.

I have personally witnessed a discouraging amount of arbitrary shutdowns of still healthy and civil discussion by moderators who offered no explaination further than a 'This conversation is over', or a 'LOCKDOWN!' - mods who even went so far as to delete all evidence of these threads after the fact.

And you are well aware of such examples, Stan, as I have PMed you on a couple of these instances to ask the reasoning for such silencing.  (A form of questioning that you now seem to be lamenting people should do more?)

How exactly does such caring and consideration, such fostering of the respectful free exchange of debate, have the opportunity to return to this forum when whole topics can be censored (like IT, or Bioware pre-release promises), and threads like 3DandBeyond's 'One Last Plea...' get slammed shut with little to no explaination?

Indeed, I am finding it utterly disengenuous (and borderline insulting) to pretend that these boards are trembling under the shadow of a rabid few who make discourse impossible by forcing the hand of moderators - that it is this toxic atmosphere alone that continues to frighten away the Bioware staff from contributing.  Yes, there is much unhelpful cynicism and spite (on all sides), but there are also far too many instances of strangled discussion, and topics banned, ignored and disappeared utterly, for this to all be solely the fault of disgruntled fans who are shouting down the audience that genuinely does want to participate in an open dialogue. 

To me, Stan, this rings rather false, and seems more like blame shifting, patronisingly shaking your head at the fanbase as a whole in order to excuse the complete silence that has marked Bioware's response to a fanbase that (even at it's most ugly) is frequently just looking (and failing) to feel heard.

In return I'd like to second this inquiry. There were and are many things going on when it comes to moderating the BSN (or at least the parts I frequent) that quite frankly I do not understand. When I returned from my vacation and found the "One last plea..." thread closed by Priestly without any reasoning I could follow I was close to leaving the BSN for good. 

I have asked some specific questions about how certain things are/were handled (in some thread I can't remember that got locked for reasons I don't remember either), like the recent ban on IT discussion. Who is involved in a decision like this, and who has the final say? Do the voluntary moderators get to voice their opinion on something like this, or do they at least get informed before it happens? Is the dev team in any kind of way involved in it? For some time now I would dearly love to get some kind of an insight in how the communication within Bioware works.

I also asked about the last time a member of the community got elevated into the rank of a moderator. I honestly can't remember seeing something like this happen, at least not during the last year. How does one qualify for this? Selene made a vague statement about this and you, Stan, talk about how it used to happen.

When I look around who is moderating the BSN sections I frequent most (mostly ME3) I see Chris Priestly as the official "paid to do it"-guy, and then you, Stan, as well as Selene Moonsong and occasionally RaenImrahl as volunteers. Maybe Jessica Merizan is active too, personally I haven't seen a post by her in months. To me it seems like this isn't really enough, and I feel that maybe some new moderators might do the community and the overall atmosphere good. 

Hm, I can even pinpoint the moment my problems with moderating the BSN and Bioware's communication in general peaked for the first time. 'twas about a year ago...

edit: minor formatting

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 20 janvier 2013 - 01:14 .