426 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

iDeevil wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

first: you can only vote, if you are a member of the academy.
second: only actors can vore other actors, directors only for directors etc.
third: you have to watch the movie in a theatre to participate.

ign: make an account


btw. 2012 was a weak year for games in general.

You have it almost right.  The members of the academy do NOT have to see the movie in the theatre to vote.  They get sent screeners of the movies to watch in the comforts of their own home.

This is the same with the SAG awards, Emmy's (for emmy voters), Golden Globes etc etc etc.

ok .. my fault .. but it does not change the fact, that those awards are given by professionals, to professionals.

gaming awards are given by people, who depend on the goodwill of the industry, to the gaming industry.


and everybody can participate in those votings, with an unknown number of accounts. in addition, every employee is able to participate in those votings as well.

the internet is a dishonest place.

[IanPolaris]

iDeevil wrote...

Complaints that Shepard died I get on a visceral level, and emotional one.  I do understand why they killed Shep off though, and I think it created what could have been a very beautifully touching bittersweet tragedy.  I guess the folks I get the less are the ones who demand 'little blue babies'.  But that's from my perspective.  No one has to agree with it.

Speaking personally, I don't mind that Shepard died.  I was actually expecting that since Arrival in ME2.  What I don't like is the complete betrayal of the Mass Effect Genre into something completly different in the last 10 minutes of the game.

-Polaris

[iDeevil]

IanPolaris wrote...

Not really.  You could have heard a pin drop from the disbelief from all the so-called critical awards that ME3 got.  Frankly DA2 was on track to have the same dichotogy before the so-called professionals rediscovered their sanity.  On a site like Ign or other professional sites, it's dead easy to goose a "reader" poll to match what the editors want.

What I said about a great rift between the so-called professional/critifcal reviews and the gaming population is a simple fact.

-Polaris

Really?  I think you are projecting a little here.  ME3's awards were no less congratulated and welcomed than anyone elses.

Now whether or not we think they were deserved.  This is always a question after all awards shows.  Personally I think competitive entertainment is a terrible sport.  People should be recognised for a job well done, not pitted against each other to see who stacks up under a subjective list of wants/needs/likes the judges have.

[IanPolaris]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

iDeevil wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

first: you can only vote, if you are a member of the academy.
second: only actors can vore other actors, directors only for directors etc.
third: you have to watch the movie in a theatre to participate.

ign: make an account


btw. 2012 was a weak year for games in general.

You have it almost right.  The members of the academy do NOT have to see the movie in the theatre to vote.  They get sent screeners of the movies to watch in the comforts of their own home.

This is the same with the SAG awards, Emmy's (for emmy voters), Golden Globes etc etc etc.

ok .. my fault .. but it does not change the fact, that those awards are given by professionals, to professionals.

gaming awards are given by people, who depend on the goodwill of the industry, to the gaming industry.


and everybody can participate in those votings, with an unknown number of accounts. in addition, every employee is able to participate in those votings as well.

the internet is a dishonest place.

Indeed, this is what I was refering to by "goosing" the reader polls.  You simply went into more detail.  I am not saying it did happen, but given the rift between the "professional" and "user" scores for ME3, I am....suspicious.

-Polaris

[iDeevil]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

ok .. my fault .. but it does not change the fact, that those awards are given by professionals, to professionals.

gaming awards are given by people, who depend on the goodwill of the industry, to the gaming industry.


and everybody can participate in those votings, with an unknown number of accounts. in addition, every employee is able to participate in those votings as well.

the internet is a dishonest place.

Aren't there some gaming awards given at a crticial and professional level?

Really though, all awards are a little suspect, no matter who gives them.

[iDeevil]

IanPolaris wrote...

Speaking personally, I don't mind that Shepard died.  I was actually expecting that since Arrival in ME2.  What I don't like is the complete betrayal of the Mass Effect Genre into something completly different in the last 10 minutes of the game.

-Polaris

I don't think it was that grand of a departure.  That being said I do think they needed a stronger lead up to it.  And a lot less of a Deus Ex Machina.

[IanPolaris]

iDeevil wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Not really.  You could have heard a pin drop from the disbelief from all the so-called critical awards that ME3 got.  Frankly DA2 was on track to have the same dichotogy before the so-called professionals rediscovered their sanity.  On a site like Ign or other professional sites, it's dead easy to goose a "reader" poll to match what the editors want.

What I said about a great rift between the so-called professional/critifcal reviews and the gaming population is a simple fact.

-Polaris

Really?  I think you are projecting a little here.  ME3's awards were no less congratulated and welcomed than anyone elses.

Now whether or not we think they were deserved.  This is always a question after all awards shows.  Personally I think competitive entertainment is a terrible sport.  People should be recognised for a job well done, not pitted against each other to see who stacks up under a subjective list of wants/needs/likes the judges have.

As others have already stated, unlike the Globe Awards, Academy Awards, and such, there is basically NO quality control at the various professinal gaming sites to insure that only those that should vote do vote (and vote only once).  The professional gaming critics already went all in for ME3 to the point of going to war against much of ME3's fanbase.  They had a very solid reason to goose those awards.

-Polaris

[iDeevil]

IanPolaris wrote...

As others have already stated, unlike the Globe Awards, Academy Awards, and such, there is basically NO quality control at the various professinal gaming sites to insure that only those that should vote do vote (and vote only once).  The professional gaming critics already went all in for ME3 to the point of going to war against much of ME3's fanbase.  They had a very solid reason to goose those awards.

-Polaris

The problem is, if the awards can be goosed so could have the polls.

That leaves us in an interesting position.  Can both things be true, or are neither of them?

I'd argue that both CAN be true.  Because one is stacked up against fan want/desire and itself.  The other is compared to other games. 

[IanPolaris]

iDeevil wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Speaking personally, I don't mind that Shepard died.  I was actually expecting that since Arrival in ME2.  What I don't like is the complete betrayal of the Mass Effect Genre into something completly different in the last 10 minutes of the game.

-Polaris

I don't think it was that grand of a departure.  That being said I do think they needed a stronger lead up to it.  And a lot less of a Deus Ex Machina.

Of course it was!  What defined Cdr Shepard up to this point?  He (or she) was a hero (or anti-hero if renegade) that went against impossible odds, took on challenges that others would blanch to even think about, and somehow but grit, will, or ingenuity (or all of these) found a way to prevail.

There was none of this in the ending.  It was essentially a surrender to the Reapers who let you win (and if you dared talk  back, you got the middle finger).  That is a complete departure. 

Almost the same endings were found in Deus Ex, but in that game, those endings FIT because the entire game and game play was all about these choices, and it wasn't about a hero (or anti-hero) battling impossible odds.

Others have explained it far better than I, but no.  The endings were a complete genre departure from the rest of ME.

-Polaris

[Clayless]

IanPolaris wrote...

As others have already stated, unlike the Globe Awards, Academy Awards, and such, there is basically NO quality control at the various professinal gaming sites to insure that only those that should vote do vote (and vote only once).  The professional gaming critics already went all in for ME3 to the point of going to war against much of ME3's fanbase.  They had a very solid reason to goose those awards.

-Polaris

It's tinfoil hat wearing territory. You can't claim that polling samples back up one claim whilst using tinfoil hat logic to dismiss polling samples that disagree with you. That just weakens your argument further.

[Dr_Extrem]

iDeevil wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

ok .. my fault .. but it does not change the fact, that those awards are given by professionals, to professionals.

gaming awards are given by people, who depend on the goodwill of the industry, to the gaming industry.


and everybody can participate in those votings, with an unknown number of accounts. in addition, every employee is able to participate in those votings as well.

the internet is a dishonest place.

Aren't there some gaming awards given at a crticial and professional level?

Really though, all awards are a little suspect, no matter who gives them.

did mass effect won them?

it got nominations for "internal" awards - like best story but i dont know, if it won any of them.


awards who are given by persons who depend on the goodwill of the awarded are to taken with a grain of salt.

[IanPolaris]

iDeevil wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

As others have already stated, unlike the Globe Awards, Academy Awards, and such, there is basically NO quality control at the various professinal gaming sites to insure that only those that should vote do vote (and vote only once).  The professional gaming critics already went all in for ME3 to the point of going to war against much of ME3's fanbase.  They had a very solid reason to goose those awards.

-Polaris

The problem is, if the awards can be goosed so could have the polls.

That leaves us in an interesting position.  Can both things be true, or are neither of them?

I'd argue that both CAN be true.  Because one is stacked up against fan want/desire and itself.  The other is compared to other games. 

Could they be true?  Yes, and there is a possibility that all the air will aggregate to the upper corner of my room for the next ten minutes and mysteriously suffocate me too.

Here's the deal.  The polls that "noob" is quoting (and are publically available) poll THOUSANDS of people.  While the quality control isn't what I consider ideal, the results are consistant over ALL of these polls done by varying organizations (some pro EA some anti). 

For what you to be saying to be true, you'd have to have the same deliberate skewing over multiple polls in multipple organizations that DON'T have a consistant axe to grind, to somehow all skew all the polls the same way over thousands of respondants.

Bull.  That is so unlikely I can reasonable say that it almost certainly didn't happen that way.

OTOH, the reader surveys for awards are perhaps a few hundred at most (and likely less than that), all done by a very select group of professional sites that all have very definate and public axe to grind against much of ME3's (former) fanbase (esp IGN).  I would say the possibility for goosing those so-called reader polls is very high.

-Polaris

[iDeevil]

IanPolaris wrote...


Of course it was!  What defined Cdr Shepard up to this point?  He (or she) was a hero (or anti-hero if renegade) that went against impossible odds, took on challenges that others would blanch to even think about, and somehow but grit, will, or ingenuity (or all of these) found a way to prevail.

There was none of this in the ending.  It was essentially a surrender to the Reapers who let you win (and if you dared talk  back, you got the middle finger).  That is a complete departure. 

Almost the same endings were found in Deus Ex, but in that game, those endings FIT because the entire game and game play was all about these choices, and it wasn't about a hero (or anti-hero) battling impossible odds.

Others have explained it far better than I, but no.  The endings were a complete genre departure from the rest of ME.

-Polaris

And I disagree.  The truth is, this was war.  It was building to an impossible end using an impossible weapon that no one could fathom what happened - yet Shepard said "build it".

That weapon required a sacrifice, a surrender, and it makes sense that she made it.  Things that don't make sense was that there was no reason for her to believe StarBrat.  He came out of no where, was not built up to.  If they had of introduced that character more organically, and explained it.

If they had of had her make the decision based on not arbitary choices, but on personal ones.  Tali, Edi, Liara, Kaiden etc.  The small picture in the bigger one, it would have been a more solid ending.

But no.  Shepard sacrificing and surrendering was not out of character, nor was it a complete depature.  The problem was the lack of build.

[Scott Sion]

If Bioware doen't want to do anything more to the ending, fine by me. It's fact that they're making up statistics that gets on my nerves. Don't pretend that the majorty of fans are 'happy' with the ending. The truth is while a majority of the fans still don't like the ending, they've stopped vocalizing their opinon. Why have they stopped?
 
Whenever someone points out the ending is still flawed they get the traditional "EC fixed it, Stop crying!". EC completely fixed the endings for you? Awesome! People are still entitled to their opinion however and shouldn't be chastised for voicing it.

I'm not saying that the EC didn't do the endings any good; it did. All I'm saying is that the endings are far from good and it's not hard to see that a majority of fans still feel this way.

Modifié par plnero, 03 mars 2013 - 12:30 .

[IanPolaris]

Robosexual wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

As others have already stated, unlike the Globe Awards, Academy Awards, and such, there is basically NO quality control at the various professinal gaming sites to insure that only those that should vote do vote (and vote only once).  The professional gaming critics already went all in for ME3 to the point of going to war against much of ME3's fanbase.  They had a very solid reason to goose those awards.

-Polaris

It's tinfoil hat wearing territory. You can't claim that polling samples back up one claim whilst using tinfoil hat logic to dismiss polling samples that disagree with you. That just weakens your argument further.

As I explain above, yes I can.

In one case, we have multiple polls that sample thousands of people per survey done by very different organizations some of whom support EA and some that don't.

In the other case we have a bare handful with a few score respondants (at most) tightly controlled by a handful of professional publications that very much have a vested interest in making EA/ME3 look as favorable as possible. 

Very different situations.

-Polaris

[Cakcedny]

Please, don't hide behind statistics, you know there's still good in the game.

[Indy_S]

Again, it does not matter whether or not it is a majority. It is beyond critical mass and should not be dismissed.

[iDeevil]

IanPolaris wrote...

Could they be true?  Yes, and there is a possibility that all the air will aggregate to the upper corner of my room for the next ten minutes and mysteriously suffocate me too.

Here's the deal.  The polls that "noob" is quoting (and are publically available) poll THOUSANDS of people.  While the quality control isn't what I consider ideal, the results are consistant over ALL of these polls done by varying organizations (some pro EA some anti). 

For what you to be saying to be true, you'd have to have the same deliberate skewing over multiple polls in multipple organizations that DON'T have a consistant axe to grind, to somehow all skew all the polls the same way over thousands of respondants.

Bull.  That is so unlikely I can reasonable say that it almost certainly didn't happen that way.

OTOH, the reader surveys for awards are perhaps a few hundred at most (and likely less than that), all done by a very select group of professional sites that all have very definate and public axe to grind against much of ME3's (former) fanbase (esp IGN).  I would say the possibility for goosing those so-called reader polls is very high.

-Polaris

Once again, you cannot argue one is true and one is false.  If one can be skewed and over voted, so can the other. 

Both options here can be true.  Yes people hated to ending.  Yes people liked the game compared to the others.

But if polls can prove the majority hated the ending.  The awards can be used as proof that the game was well recieved and/or loved.  If it cannot, neither can be used as proof for anything,

[iDeevil]

Indy_S wrote...

Again, it does not matter whether or not it is a majority. It is beyond critical mass and should not be dismissed.

And again, it is not.  While there is no change to the endings in ME3, they are doing a hell of a lot of market research of wants/needs for DA3 and ME4.  They have learnt from it.

Now the only issue is that I am sure some fans are going to believe all their wants should be included into the game, despite the impracticality of it.

[Clayless]

IanPolaris wrote...

As I explain above, yes I can.

In one case, we have multiple polls that sample thousands of people per survey done by very different organizations some of whom support EA and some that don't.

In the other case we have a bare handful with a few score respondants (at most) tightly controlled by a handful of professional publications that very much have a vested interest in making EA/ME3 look as favorable as possible. 

Very different situations.

-Polaris

It's tinfoil hat logic. The ground you have to dismiss it is the same ground you have to use the ones that agree with you.

[IanPolaris]

iDeevil wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Could they be true?  Yes, and there is a possibility that all the air will aggregate to the upper corner of my room for the next ten minutes and mysteriously suffocate me too.

Here's the deal.  The polls that "noob" is quoting (and are publically available) poll THOUSANDS of people.  While the quality control isn't what I consider ideal, the results are consistant over ALL of these polls done by varying organizations (some pro EA some anti). 

For what you to be saying to be true, you'd have to have the same deliberate skewing over multiple polls in multipple organizations that DON'T have a consistant axe to grind, to somehow all skew all the polls the same way over thousands of respondants.

Bull.  That is so unlikely I can reasonable say that it almost certainly didn't happen that way.

OTOH, the reader surveys for awards are perhaps a few hundred at most (and likely less than that), all done by a very select group of professional sites that all have very definate and public axe to grind against much of ME3's (former) fanbase (esp IGN).  I would say the possibility for goosing those so-called reader polls is very high.

-Polaris

Once again, you cannot argue one is true and one is false.  If one can be skewed and over voted, so can the other. 

Both options here can be true.  Yes people hated to ending.  Yes people liked the game compared to the others.

But if polls can prove the majority hated the ending.  The awards can be used as proof that the game was well recieved and/or loved.  If it cannot, neither can be used as proof for anything,

Yes I can.  This may sound rude, but take a class in combinatorial statistics and pass it.  When you do, you'll understand that these are NOT the same things.

If I take a poll of 100, it's a lot easier to skew that poll to show what I want, then if I take a poll of 10,000.  Given that the polls that 'noob' shows have responses in the thousands, it's a lot harder to deliberately skew those polls.  Note I am not saying they are scientific, but given that different polls of thousands of respondants, done differently, by different sponsers many of whom liked EA/ME3 (and many that didn't), there isn't a clear bias that cuts across ALL of these data.  Given that the polls all show the same thing anyway, we can reasonably conslude that the results seem to reflect the opinion (more or less) of the larger population.

By contrast, with the reader awards (and ME3 didn't win many of these...just was nominated which means the editor put it on the list and that takes a vote of one), you are talking about a poll of perhaps a hundred or so, with no internal controls, done by an set of organizations with a strong vested interest in seeing the results come out a certain way.  That'a almost begging for a goosed poll.

-Polaris

[Indy_S]

iDeevil wrote...

And again, it is not.  While there is no change to the endings in ME3, they are doing a hell of a lot of market research of wants/needs for DA3 and ME4.  They have learnt from it.

Now the only issue is that I am sure some fans are going to believe all their wants should be included into the game, despite the impracticality of it.

Why do I feel like it's a PR move to not show us any evidence of this? That's entirely contrary to what would appeal to me.

[IanPolaris]

john_sheparrd wrote...

clevernoob is a troll and btw this polls were made pre ec
/thread

Not all the polls are pre-EC, and please show me more recent data (any data) that shows otherwise.

/thread

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Robosexual wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

As I explain above, yes I can.

In one case, we have multiple polls that sample thousands of people per survey done by very different organizations some of whom support EA and some that don't.

In the other case we have a bare handful with a few score respondants (at most) tightly controlled by a handful of professional publications that very much have a vested interest in making EA/ME3 look as favorable as possible. 

Very different situations.

-Polaris

It's tinfoil hat logic. The ground you have to dismiss it is the same ground you have to use the ones that agree with you.

No.  It's statistics.  It's a lot easier to skew a poll with a very small sample (especially if the people that do the counting have an agenda) than it is to skew a very large poll over multiple organizations that don't all have a set agenda.

-Polaris