390 réponses à ce sujet

[78stonewobble]

Actually I think alot of the criticism have been constructive.

There have been some pretty precise descriptions of what some people didn't like. Even also praise for things that some people find good. Though obviously people from all sides could be somewhat nicer about it.

However... I've never been one to say "oh thats nice" about something I think is BS. Or vice versa.

If I think something is crap I'll say that, and people doesn't have to agree with me. Afterall it's just my individual oppinion NOT a divine truth in anyway.

Please note though. I'm voicing my disagreement with eg. end product thingymobob, an idea or an action. Not necessarily with people or a company (in that case it would be the person responsible for that certain decision/action).

Noone puts out only good to perfect stuff all the time. Everyone makes mistakes or even just decisions which could have been better.

I tend to believe that having those mistakes / poorer decisions pointed out can enable you to recognize them and avoid them in the future.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 19 janvier 2013 - 10:20 .

[Clayless]

@AresKeith: Who goes to work to get shouted at or attacked from the people who buy their products?

@Indy_S: Thing is, if you really want a constructive discussion, you desperately need to call out the people who do everything they can to sabotage that. Already I've seen a "toxic" meme being used in this thread, it shows that this place is so against constructive feedback that they will turn quotes from DA developers into a meme to be used against the Mass Effect team. Countless people have made comments such as "admiting their mistakes". What mistakes? What mistake did Bioware make? That's a question I've asked many times and I've never got an answer. So how do you think those people will react if Bioware comes with a different opinion to them? Do you think they'll appreciate Bioware answering or do you think they'll just mindlessly turn everything they don't want to hear into a meme because of some weird victim mentality?

Those are the people you need to stop if you want the anti-enders to be constructive. Whether you like it or not, those people stand beside you and drown out all the moderates.

Modifié par Robosexual, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:30 .

[ZLurps]

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

[Indy_S]

Robosexual wrote...

@Indy_S: Thing is, if you really want a constructive discussion, you desperately need to call out the people who do everything they can to sabotage that. Already I've seen a "toxic" meme being used in this thread, it shows that this place is so against constructive feedback that they will turn quotes from DA developers into a meme to be used against the Mass Effect team. Countless people have made comments such as "admiting their mistakes". What mistakes? What mistake did Bioware make? That's a question I've asked many times and I've never got an answer. So how do you think those people will react if Bioware comes with a different opinion to them? Do you think they'll appreciate Bioware answering or do you think they'll just mindlessly turn everything they don't want to hear into a meme because of some weird victim mentality?

Those are the people you need to stop if you want the anti-enders to be constructive. Whether you like it or not, those people stand beside you and drown out all the moderates.

Calling out those who use memes and try to sabotage a thread is not productive. There exists a mentality to just hate everything and there isn't anything that can be done to such people. I have used the meme myself, it matches the tone of its intent. The focusless hate, name-calling and even praise fits the term 'toxic' quite well.

BioWare is not a single body. It is made up of many individuals working together to create a game. Some will notice 'mistakes' that others see as intended. Criticising what is perceived as a mistake (Harbinger's diminished role, for example) is valid and a justification for why the role was dimished (He was seen as 'silly') can soothe some people and cause additional discussions. Some people will not accept the justifications but the alternative is that nobody will accept the justifications because they were never made.

[Eterna]

Ninja Stan wrote...


The posts in this thread from people like Eterna5 and Optimus J are examples of attitudes that are best avoided if you want positive attention from the devs. While it's unfortunate that the actions of a few are making things more difficult for the rest of you, I hope you can see how it would be really easy for devs to get a really bad vibe from the discussion and hit the metaphorical Escape key.

You may disagree with my attitude, but nothing I said is untrue. Gaider pretty much confirmed it. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 19 janvier 2013 - 09:48 .

[Clayless]

Indy_S wrote...

Calling out those who use memes and try to sabotage a thread is not productive. There exists a mentality to just hate everything and there isn't anything that can be done to such people. I have used the meme myself, it matches the tone of its intent. The focusless hate, name-calling and even praise fits the term 'toxic' quite well.

BioWare is not a single body. It is made up of many individuals working together to create a game. Some will notice 'mistakes' that others see as intended. Criticising what is perceived as a mistake (Harbinger's diminished role, for example) is valid and a justification for why the role was dimished (He was seen as 'silly') can soothe some people and cause additional discussions. Some people will not accept the justifications but the alternative is that nobody will accept the justifications because they were never made.

How much people that hate the ending accepted Biowares blog about the creation of the EC, and didn't just mindlessly turn it into "artistic integrity"? How much people accepted the reasoning behind not turning TIM into a Reaper monster, and didn't just mindlessly turn it into "too videogamey"?

What has changed? What will make any discussions Bioware may have in the future any different?

[JamesFaith]

Indy_S wrote...
Criticising what is perceived as a mistake (Harbinger's diminished role, for example) is valid and a justification for why the role was dimished (He was seen as 'silly') can soothe some people and cause additional discussions. Some people will not accept the justifications but the alternative is that nobody will accept the justifications because they were never made.

You know in case of Harbinger Jessica Merizan made a statement why he hasn't so big role as some fans expected. And what happenned? Her statement was misshaped and turned into the another meme weapon against BW - infamous "don't be too attached to plot".

[Ninja Stan]

I was blown away by the comments posted to the two threads in response to the ME team holding their last design meeting. That's a great example of people (mostly) managing to put aside their differences and disagreements to really show their support for the team and the world they've created.

Look at the stark difference in tone from the comments in those threads, to the kinds of discussion threads you'd normally see in the ME3 Story forum. You can feel the love coming from those users, even though some of them still really hate the endings or disagree with the decisions BioWare made. But they're not throwing around accusations, not badmouthing anyone, and they're showing a lot of respect and love to the devs.

If the forum in general can move towards that kind of love and support, even while disagreeing and debating and challenging BioWare, that would be a great step to take in showing the devs (maybe even the devs you REALLY want to talk to) that this is a safe place once again.

[Indy_S]

Robosexual wrote...

How much people that hate the ending accepted Biowares blog about the creation of the EC, and didn't just mindlessly turn it into "artistic integrity"? How much people accepted the reasoning behind not turning TIM into a Reaper monster, and didn't just mindlessly turn it into "too videogamey"?

What has changed? What will make any discussions Bioware may have in the future any different?

The 'artistic integrity' comment is so maligned because it came in place of an actual justification. "We think it's good" is not a constructive comment. They could have used a justification to create a meaningful discussion but they didn't. 'Too videogamey' was lacking in context even when it first appeared. It has three possible meanings in its original form, one of which was adopted into the BSN subculture ('We don't wanna make video games!'). The lack of clarity provided in light of this comment means there was never an attempt to stop it from evolving into an attack on the company.

Neither of those examples were a discussion. That's the difference. BioWare, aside from a rare few, have removed all discussion from the table.

[Indy_S]

JamesFaith wrote...

Indy_S wrote...
Criticising what is perceived as a mistake (Harbinger's diminished role, for example) is valid and a justification for why the role was dimished (He was seen as 'silly') can soothe some people and cause additional discussions. Some people will not accept the justifications but the alternative is that nobody will accept the justifications because they were never made.

You know in case of Harbinger Jessica Merizan made a statement why he hasn't so big role as some fans expected. And what happenned? Her statement was misshaped and turned into the another meme weapon against BW - infamous "don't be too attached to plot".

I forgot about that one. The thing is, that's not actually a justification. That's another instance of a deflection. There's no reflection on the value or success of the decision, just a triumph of side-stepping the question. If BioWare wants to be in a discussion, they need to be a part of it. They need to try to support their side. But that's not what we've seen.

[JamesFaith]

Indy_S wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...
You know in case of Harbinger Jessica Merizan made a statement why he hasn't so big role as some fans expected. And what happenned? Her statement was misshaped and turned into the another meme weapon against BW - infamous "don't be too attached to plot".

I forgot about that one. The thing is, that's not actually a justification. That's another instance of a deflection. There's no reflection on the value or success of the decision, just a triumph of side-stepping the question. If BioWare wants to be in a discussion, they need to be a part of it. They need to try to support their side. But that's not what we've seen.

And here you can see one of core problems of such reactions on fans questions.

For me was her respond OK. I'm writter and I understand what she said and I absolutely agreed with her.

For you it wasn't enough so you disclaimed is as insufficient reaction.

Problem is that anyone on BSN can disclaim anything said by BW as insufficient, PR talk, deflection claims and so on. And because some people demanded practically unconditionally capitulation of BW, every justification is potentional source of another fightings and annoying memes.

[Clayless]

Indy_S wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

How much people that hate the ending accepted Biowares blog about the creation of the EC, and didn't just mindlessly turn it into "artistic integrity"? How much people accepted the reasoning behind not turning TIM into a Reaper monster, and didn't just mindlessly turn it into "too videogamey"?

What has changed? What will make any discussions Bioware may have in the future any different?

The 'artistic integrity' comment is so maligned because it came in place of an actual justification. "We think it's good" is not a constructive comment. They could have used a justification to create a meaningful discussion but they didn't. 'Too videogamey' was lacking in context even when it first appeared. It has three possible meanings in its original form, one of which was adopted into the BSN subculture ('We don't wanna make video games!'). The lack of clarity provided in light of this comment means there was never an attempt to stop it from evolving into an attack on the company.

Neither of those examples were a discussion. That's the difference. BioWare, aside from a rare few, have removed all discussion from the table.

Of course they're allowed to think it's good, just like you're allowed to think it's rubbish, but you can't just dismiss anything Bioware says because you disagree with it. What would there be to discuss there? It's just opinion.

As for the "too videogamey" comment it wasn't lacking in context. They said they didn't feel like turning TIM into a monster just for the sake of having a final boss, his weapon has always been his mind. They didn't feel like there needed to be a boss fight just for the sake of having a boss fight. People hated that answer, hence the "too videogamey" meme. The context and explanation was there, people just chose to ignore it because they didn't like the answer. Bioware might not be having discussions with us, but it was the fans that removed that option from the table a long time ago.

[Dunabar]

Ninja Stan wrote...

I was blown away by the comments posted to the two threads in response to the ME team holding their last design meeting. That's a great example of people (mostly) managing to put aside their differences and disagreements to really show their support for the team and the world they've created.

Look at the stark difference in tone from the comments in those threads, to the kinds of discussion threads you'd normally see in the ME3 Story forum. You can feel the love coming from those users, even though some of them still really hate the endings or disagree with the decisions BioWare made. But they're not throwing around accusations, not badmouthing anyone, and they're showing a lot of respect and love to the devs.

If the forum in general can move towards that kind of love and support, even while disagreeing and debating and challenging BioWare, that would be a great step to take in showing the devs (maybe even the devs you REALLY want to talk to) that this is a safe place once again.

So much win right in here.

While I can understand where people get angry in frustrated over spots in the game, it doesn't mean the game is an absolute bomb. Yeah there are things I don't like about the game, but im pleased with many other things as well.

The major problem is that people mistake "criticism" for rage and snarling. Constructive criticism works best when delivering a point of something you dislike, by offering an idea you will find better responses (or a response of some kind) even coming your way.

However there is a degree of pride that needs to be kept in check. Yeah BioWare cannot please everyone, its impossible. So you got to find what you like and constructively go about talking about what you dislike. If you just fly off the wall screaming "this game sucks!", "BioWare failed us!" or whatever. You're not helping anyone and just providing a reason for a hard working company to spend less time talking to the fan base.

If I wrote a book and people didn't like it to the point that all they wanted to do was rip into me about it, would I want to interact with these people? No. However if people will constructively talk with me on what they feel could be improved upon, I would be more willing to listen.

BioWare is made up of humans just like the fan base is. You can yell and scream all you want, but sooner or later people will just ignore you because they don't want to be screamed at. BioWare put a lot of time into making this game and I can say as a former student of game art and design, this stuff isn't just a matter of a few clicks, a couple of coffee break notes, and slapping a cool name on the project.

There is time, hard work, frustration, and commitment to making these games that most fans don't get to see. Yeah we would like more hours to be put into a game, but there is points where we need to be reasonable. If every game BioWare cranked out was perfect, what would be the point of making anymore games? While I doubt BioWare would actually "try" to make a bad game, they need the aid of constructive members of the fan base to help them make a better game.

So yeah, maybe ME3 didn't live up to what some people didn't want. But it doesn't mean that the game cannot be used to build something better from it. I enjoyed the game greatly myself, yeah I had a few things I disliked but I'm not going to paint the forums in goats blood and scream curses at BioWare. Thats below me and that doesn't help them find out what I had an issue with. We need to be a constructive community, not a destructive community.

Modifié par Dunabar, 19 janvier 2013 - 10:25 .

[78stonewobble]

Now to the more constructive part: On choices matter.

Last night I played through one of my favorite parts of Mass Effect 2, with a little tweak and legion at my side. Tali's loyalty mission. Sure it had alot of talking and the combat was "only" ok to good, but not mindblowing. Obviously the fact that I found Quarians, the Geth/Quarian conflict and Tali herself both interesting and emotionally engaging are part of why I love this part. For me it was an intruiging "sightseeing" mission into those 2 intertwined cultures.

Ok I cringed a bit at the "I don't need evidence" line, but hey my Shep's got charisma up the wazoo (unlike me, escapism much?).

During the trial, you get to actually talk to the real people in power with the Quarians. The admirals. You debate, argue and manipulate them. To further your own goals to save Tali, move them towards peace, towards war or mold their perspective on the Geth.

Since I allways saw the citadel council as somewhat of a token political body that tackled interspecies relations, but couldn't do much to move their own races in a certain direction (and indeed was afraid to). I saw this as my first opportunity to make some larger difference with a relatively major power.



The first times I played through this I had quite high hopes for my actions here mattering in me3.
Granted I knew that it would be impossible (atleast economically) to design a game that took into account every eventuality in a unique way. That would have meant a dozen games. That's wholly unrealistic.

However my own ideas at the time were that I was helping in shaping the future relationship between the Geth and the Quarians. Or atleast laying the ground work for making peace or starting a war.

Specifically: I imagined a mission designed to spur them to peace or war. Made harder / easier (not gameplay but the talky talky stuff) depending on what I had said in me2. Like the mission in me2, where if certain people survived you could count on them to help you get your point across.

I further imagined a follow on mission. Which took everything that had gone before it and made it matter in gameplay with a bit of suicide mission consequence mixed in if applicable. Eg:

If I had goaded the Quarians/Geth into war. Shep would fight along side either against both other AND Reapers.

If I had goaded the Quarians/Geth into peace. Shep would have both as allies and have an easier fight on his hands or alternatively less likely to loose eg. a squadmate.


 
High expectations or even hype indeed. But in my defence I was kinda goaded into it by the me2 loading screen saying my actions could have dire effects in me3. I also fully expected some decisions in me1/2 to allmost by default lead to a loss in me3.  What we got was something else.

Don't misunderstand me. I love the Rannoch mission in Me3. It is very well made and one of the most emotionally engaging parts of any game I've played. So much I couldn't bring myself to ever play through the Tali suicide. Heck just watching it on youtube gave me watery eyes (I cried em out ).

It IS just that good.



However I am somewhat disappointed or maybe more miffed that they didn't find a better way to make previous choices matter. Especially here my previous choices feel ignored.

It did force me to become somewhat disengaged from the Geth/Quarian conflict and from the hole "I do have an effect on something". It was mostly my interest in Tali that carried the emotional engagement for it.



I don't have any magical ideas on how to make choices matter more in future games. Obviously and as previously mentioned, just adding more and more gameplay for every eventuality is unfeasible.

I suspect the solution is to design eg. missions but especially the story with flexibility in mind.

Eg. sheps initial meeting with quarians in me3. You don't change much in terms of characters, graphics, locale or anything like that. "Just" have the extra dialogue ready for either war meeting/peace summit.

Eg. in the mission itself there was actually no technical reason for us to fight against geth rather with the geth against reapers. It was a storyline limitation. All the map design had to do was to represent old quarian, new geth and reaper damage and then we could have exchanged everyone involved without much ado. Like in multiplayer were we fight a variety of enemies on a variety of maps (some of which are rather good actually).

Keep the "basic" stuff flexible and trust the quality of the inflexible (the dialogue and cutscenes) to keep people engaged.

Personally I think it must be very hard for eg. a writer to have, what he thinks is a great story and then cut it into pieces and maybe even add stuff he himself would dislike. However that is the job if you want to put out a flexible story. Then it isn't the writers story anymore. It's an amalgam of possibilities shaped by the writer, developers and gamers in conjunction.



End of longwinded "rant"? 

And the useless observations of a complete game development process ignorant.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 19 janvier 2013 - 10:32 .

[Seboist]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

But so far, the most common complaints are:

2- Lack of Harbringer and collectors.

Yeah, some on here want to make an already pointless middle entry even more pointless by having Collectors in SP.

[dorktainian]

Seboist wrote...

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

But so far, the most common complaints are:

2- Lack of Harbringer and collectors.

Yeah, some on here want to make an already pointless middle entry even more pointless by having Collectors in SP.

the middle isn't pointless at all if you actually understand what is going on with cerberus.

[Iakus]

If you want to see great examples of constructive criticism on these very forums, look up posts and threads made by Drayfish and 3dandbeyond. Long, thoughtful posts full of passion but not hate

[Indy_S]

Robo and James, you are making very similar points so I will address them at the same time.

First off, I was wrong about the 'too videogamey' comment. You're right, the context was there and I can't even begin to justify the existence of that meme.

'Artistic integrity' and 'Don't get too attached to a plot' are both used in place of a justification. The original context of 'artistic integrity' is this:

The team and I have been thinking hard about how to best address the comments on ME3’s endings from players, while still maintaining the artistic integrity of the game.

Nowhere in the article did Dr Ray attempt to justify his choices, and that phrase was cherry-picked as the words they were shielding themselves with.

And the context for 'Never get...' is this:

Plfranke: Can you give an answer to why Harbinger never spoke in me3?
Jessica Merizan: we know that's what you hoped to see, but sometimes we have other ideas we want to explore - never get too attached to a plot.

Having other ideas is great but what made you pick another idea over this one? In either case, there is no instance of reflection, of critical thought to support the decision they made. There is no room for discussion at all on these issues because nothing new was added. Answering a question without addressing any part of the question, as Jessica did, is deflection. I can support standing by your game, I really can, but doing it without standing up for it at all is... insufficient.

[Ninja Stan]

78stonewobble, that is a great example of constructive feedback. You talk about what you felt and why, offer suggestions on what you'd like to see different, you speak very conversationally, and the love and passion you have for the game is evident. You even acknowledge the limitations of what you'd like to see, and call out examples from the game that you felt really positive towards.

Best of all, you weren't posturing, you made no demands, and you never implied that yours was the only/correct/best opinion. You provided many opportunities for people to engage you in discussion, and several different angles to start from.

I like your post also because it's allowed to breathe and someone isn't jumping right on it to tear it down. (I also sometimes have trouble letting a post breathe before responding.) But we should also not be afraid to acknowledge when someone else has made a really good point, or to admit when we're mistaken. It's not a competition for who gets BioWare's attention by being the loudest or the most right. BioWare takes all kinds of feedback and will consider it their own way. They might take a positive, they might take a negative, they might take both or neither.

And here's a good note that some people need to learn and take to heart: just because BioWare likes an idea or suggestion or criticism, it does not mean they are immediately going to implement it and ignore all opinions to the contrary. That's not how the feedback chain works and not how games are developed. So there's no need (and never was a need) for all that "we have to keep criticizing or BioWare will think their games are perfect" nonsense. Those both amuse and sadden me.

[78stonewobble]

iakus wrote...

If you want to see great examples of constructive criticism on these very forums, look up posts and threads made by Drayfish and 3dandbeyond. Long, thoughtful posts full of passion but not hate

Actually speaking of "hate".

I think the game itself needed more of that.

They did a great job incorporating joy, happyness, love, sadness but in some way they didn't really pull of some antagonists I could really hate (or very very dislike atleast).

[Ninja Stan]

Indy_S wrote...

Nowhere in the article did Dr Ray attempt to justify his choices, and that phrase was cherry-picked as the words they were shielding themselves with.

But neither Ray nor the team have to justify their choices. Those were the decisions made and people are free to like them or agree with them, or dislike them and disagree with them. Sure, it'd be nice to know, just as it'd be nice to know how Penn and Teller do that magic trick, but it's not something they're obligated to share.

But for whatever reason they have not decided to share that with you. Which is different from deciding to not share it with you. The latter makes it sound like sharing the info with you is the default state, while the opposite is more likely to be true. The default state is doing exactly what they've done, so it's business as usual.

Having other ideas is great but what made you pick another idea over this one? In either case, there is no instance of reflection, of critical thought to support the decision they made. There is no room for discussion at all on these issues because nothing new was added. Answering a question without addressing any part of the question, as Jessica did, is deflection. I can support standing by your game, I really can, but doing it without standing up for it at all is... insufficient.

Aren't you kinda proving the point I made on page 2 of this thread, where I suggested that any BioWare action or inaction is a no-win for them? In this case, you can't accept their complete silence. The official comments you do refer to merely criticized them as inadequate. If the only other option is to tell you everything, which is completely off the table, isn't that a no-win for BioWare?

[Indy_S]

78stonewobble wrote...

iakus wrote...

If you want to see great examples of constructive criticism on these very forums, look up posts and threads made by Drayfish and 3dandbeyond. Long, thoughtful posts full of passion but not hate

Actually speaking of "hate".

I think the game itself needed more of that.

They did a great job incorporating joy, happyness, love, sadness but in some way they didn't really pull of some antagonists I could really hate (or very very dislike atleast).

Hate was fairly intuitive with Kai Leng but that's probably more because if it wasn't the player fighting him, Shepard is a complete idiot. The end of the Thessia battle was pretty hate-inducing. 'There's only one way this ends' *b****slap*. Knocking out two of the supposedly most competent soldiers in the galaxy with one slap didn't sit well for me.

[XXIceColdXX]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

Sure. But my biggest question is....what exactly is there left to say here? Bioware asks for our feedback, we give it to them in constructive ways, but they wave most of it off. But yet they still ask for our feedback. Like...what exactly do they want us to talk about here besides praising the game?

This sorta gets me too. Weve given Bioware all the feedback they need. Detailed constructive critisism, pointed out plot holes and continuity errors and even ways to rectify some. Thorough explanations of why the endings were recieved so poorly & numerous theories and ideas on how they could be improved. 

I hope they the devs are listening, because there has been some amazing feedback on the BSN over the last year. 

[78stonewobble]

Ninja Stan wrote...

78stonewobble, that is a great example of constructive feedback. You talk about what you felt and why, offer suggestions on what you'd like to see different, you speak very conversationally, and the love and passion you have for the game is evident. You even acknowledge the limitations of what you'd like to see, and call out examples from the game that you felt really positive towards.

Best of all, you weren't posturing, you made no demands, and you never implied that yours was the only/correct/best opinion. You provided many opportunities for people to engage you in discussion, and several different angles to start from.

I like your post also because it's allowed to breathe and someone isn't jumping right on it to tear it down. (I also sometimes have trouble letting a post breathe before responding.) But we should also not be afraid to acknowledge when someone else has made a really good point, or to admit when we're mistaken. It's not a competition for who gets BioWare's attention by being the loudest or the most right. BioWare takes all kinds of feedback and will consider it their own way. They might take a positive, they might take a negative, they might take both or neither.

And here's a good note that some people need to learn and take to heart: just because BioWare likes an idea or suggestion or criticism, it does not mean they are immediately going to implement it and ignore all opinions to the contrary. That's not how the feedback chain works and not how games are developed. So there's no need (and never was a need) for all that "we have to keep criticizing or BioWare will think their games are perfect" nonsense. Those both amuse and sadden me.

Thank you for the kind words.

To be honest my post had allready breathed a bit. It stemmed from an incoherent overly tired rambling pm reply to 3dandbeyond. Sleeping on it definately helped make my points somewhat more coherent.

Personally I try to make it a point that everyone is fully entitled to their oppinions and, unless it can be objectively measured, there really isn't any correct answer.

Also I don't see the endgoal of every discussion as necessarily being convincing people that eg. black is the best colour. Just to exchange reasons for liking xyz and, through that, understanding other people better is often enough for me.

[Indy_S]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Nowhere in the article did Dr Ray attempt to justify his choices, and that phrase was cherry-picked as the words they were shielding themselves with.

But neither Ray nor the team have to justify their choices. Those were the decisions made and people are free to like them or agree with them, or dislike them and disagree with them. Sure, it'd be nice to know, just as it'd be nice to know how Penn and Teller do that magic trick, but it's not something they're obligated to share.

But for whatever reason they have not decided to share that with you. Which is different from deciding to not share it with you. The latter makes it sound like sharing the info with you is the default state, while the opposite is more likely to be true. The default state is doing exactly what they've done, so it's business as usual.

Having other ideas is great but what made you pick another idea over this one? In either case, there is no instance of reflection, of critical thought to support the decision they made. There is no room for discussion at all on these issues because nothing new was added. Answering a question without addressing any part of the question, as Jessica did, is deflection. I can support standing by your game, I really can, but doing it without standing up for it at all is... insufficient.

Aren't you kinda proving the point I made on page 2 of this thread, where I suggested that any BioWare action or inaction is a no-win for them? In this case, you can't accept their complete silence. The official comments you do refer to merely criticized them as inadequate. If the only other option is to tell you everything, which is completely off the table, isn't that a no-win for BioWare?

Yeah, I'm being a tad forceful. They didn't have to justify their choices. I don't want to come across as saying they do. But I am saying it would be better and you're free to disagree with me on that. Unfortunately, BioWare's history was that they shared info with us. They leapt into discussions with fans and this is no longer the case.

I think I am proving that point, albeit in a somewhat intentional way. They have to think about what they're saying. However I did explain why I found them inadequate which is more than what the quotes give us. A lack of reflection and critical thought which does not allow any room for discussion. Everything isn't required, but I'll argue that something is.

EDIT: Upon reflection, part of my expectation for the first point is a couple of quotes from the same Dr Ray blog.

 I’m honored to work with [the Mass Effect Team] because they have the courage and strength to respond to constructive feedback.

We listen and will respond to constructive criticism, but much as we will not tolerate individual attacks on our team members, we will not support or respond to destructive commentary.

If you are a Mass Effect fan and have input for the team – we respect your opinion and want to hear it. We’re committed to address your constructive feedback as best we can.

Modifié par Indy_S, 19 janvier 2013 - 11:15 .