1470 réponses à ce sujet

[Megaton_Hope]

Optimystic_X wrote...
But fewer than a thousand people participate in most BSN polls too.

Not what I'm indicating.

Thumbs up: 2,605
Destroy, 2,283 Control, 3,262
Synthesis. 1,286
Refuse.

9,436 total, or thereabouts.

Thumbs down: 319 Destroy. 237 Control. 336 Synthesis. 168 Refuse.

1,060 total.

So out of the hundreds of thousands of people who wanted to see what each ending would be like, about ten thousand cared either way about what they were like? And .5% happened to like any of the endings, after seeing them, enough to register their approval with a vote. Since the thumbs measure approval of the content rather than approval of the video existing, as asserted.

[Yestare7]

Optimystic_X wrote...

How is it "mumbo-jumbo?"

Go up the page and read. Dreamgazer explained it pretty well.


"less of a person"  - The trick you employ here is called "putting things in my mouth"

yes, a youtube clickie is MUCH less work that a dedicated poster on the BSN

Modifié par Yestare7, 09 mai 2013 - 07:26 .

[SpamBot2000]

dreamgazer wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

BioWare made an ending that leaves the Mass Effect Universe "a boring wasteland", no matter which color you pick. Mac Walters said it himself. That's not really allowing players to fashion "their own epilogue". That's keeping them from doing it.

Well, that's kinda bound to be the case after a war with mechanical, near-invincible Cthulhu tears the galaxy asunder.

Be that as it may, the ending was hardly BW thoughtfully giving invested players the option to "fashion their own epilogue", as chemiclord argued might have been the case. They buried the universe, put a tombstone over it.

Then of course they went on to change the aftermath of a war with the mechanical, near-invincible Cthulhu into My Little Green Pony prancing in a lollipop rain, with their "clarification" Extended Cut.

[PsyrenY]

Megaton_Hope wrote...


So out of the hundreds of thousands of people who wanted to see what each ending would be like, about ten thousand cared either way about what they were like? And .5% happened to like any of the endings, after seeing them, enough to register their approval with a vote. Since the thumbs measure approval of the content rather than approval of the video existing, as asserted.

And how many people care enough either way to sign up for BSN? And how many of those bother to participate in ending polls?

That's my point - if Youtube is useless, BSN is even moreso.

Yestare7 wrote...

yes, a youtube clickie is MUCH less work that a dedicated poster on the BSN

The barrier to entry for a BSN poll is higher than a click on a YT video.

[SpamBot2000]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The barrier to entry for a BSN poll is higher than a click on a YT video.

It's not. EA forced me to have a BSN account to play the PC version of Mass Effect. Well, an Origin account to be precise. But they amount to the same thing. Youtube didn't force me to have an account that you need to "like" things, so I don't have one.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 09 mai 2013 - 07:46 .

[shodiswe]

While they are right that people gor very attached to the characters and the popularity of the Citadel DLC shows this. That isn't the only reason people disliked the endings.
Personaly I found a lot of things lacking in the prioriy earth mission aswell as in the endings.
The EC did help but the issues wernt just linked to how attached people were with the characters and how that made them feel about the ending.
Several other aspects of the end game was lacking as a story telling experience.
The best parts of the game were the characters, their backstory and actors. The evironments.
Several of the story sections needed more work, but the characters is what carried the game.
The story could have been worse but it could also have been a lot better, maybe by giving it some aditional work or by testing the story by having controlgroup who isn't involved in the creation of the story look at it.
Logic flaws moments where the writer just skips ahead or just throws somthing in that the audience might find hard tinterpret or relate to or questionable would probably be easier to find this way.

I definately think they should focus on their strengths and make the most otu of it.
But I also think they should look at ways to catch these other issues before they reach the final production stage.
I dont know enough about their processes to know what they are already doing and actualy provide more concrete sugestions on how to quality control the process.

[PsyrenY]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

It's not. EA forced me to have a BSN account to play the PC version of Mass Effect. Well, an Origin account to be precise. But they amount to the same thing. Youtube didn't force me to have an account that you need to "like" things, so I don't have one.

...You realize you're actually proving my point?

Youtube is much easier to sign up for than Origin.

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...

I mean... it hurts my brain to think about.  Even if you buy the explanation that they had no idea if they were going to extend the series past ME1, that is NO excuse to not have a framework in place.  Playing it by ear is a very dangerous way to tell a story... and only the most masterful and improvisational writers can pull it off.

I can see why Bio thought they could pull this off . The TV writers work like this most of the time, and get away with it most of the time.

[Ieldra]

Yestare7 wrote...
If I was one of them, I'd be proud of my independent non-masses choice,

I am that. I also don't believe that Synthesis has more than a 20% following among the players, with a confidence interval of about 4% (according to a 20k poll - this may be more if the casual players choose significantly different from us hardcore ones. "No data available" on that, unfortunately).  YT numbers are also misleasding, you can as easily interpret them as "those endings get the most views that players most rarely experience for themselves". However, the issue is that some Destroyers use their status as the majority here on BSN to try and bully dissensters into submission. Shouting louder than the opposition says nothing about the merit of your arguments, but unfortunately it does have an effect, and this effect needs to be countered.

[PsyrenY]

Ieldra2 wrote...

YT numbers are also misleasding, you can as easily interpret them as "those endings get the most views that players most rarely experience for themselves".

This would be the "morbid curiosity" angle that dreamgazer put forward - to which I again say that the like ratio should be in the nether regions (or at least far worse than it actually is) if the majority of folks watching synthesis videos are people that didn't choose synthesis. Or if, more importantly,  the BSN polls were truly representative of the fanbase in general.

Ieldra2 wrote...

However, the issue is that some Destroyers use their status as the majority here on BSN to try and bully dissensters into submission. Shouting louder than the opposition says nothing about the merit of your arguments, but unfortunately it does have an effect, and this effect needs to be countered.

Pretty much this.

[Alien Number Six]

I can't wait to play Mass Effect.........whatever they are going to name it.

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

How else should I respond to "No it doesn't make sense. Next!" Such people clearly have made up their minds and closed them to all further discussion.

"A wise man changes his mind sometimes, a fool never."

Not really.

A wise man doesn't need to change his opinion on anything. The people he speaks with could just be damned fools
who really, really have no idea what they're talking about. Case in point: most of this board.

:DOh really now? A wise man doesn't ever change his opinion huh? Is that so?

That's honestly making me cringe and laugh at the same time.

And who presay is a wise man under your definition? Because the only people I can think of who don't change their opinions no matter what are stupid people, and dictators who control countires like north korea.

A wise man doesn't need to change his mind.  Leaving out a word to change the meaning of the sentance is not cool.

And that I call hypocrite. You are speaking about vileness of leaving out a word to change meaning of sentence and then you left out "on anything" part in your argumentation, which completely changing meaning of sentence too.  

[Mastone]

To get back on topic, I think the interview is a charm offensive.
It shaves the surface on the poor quality ending and greatly emphasizes on the great succes, that Citadel apparently was.
I personally don't think they have learned anything aside from the fact that gamers nowadays don't need quality, creativity or improvements, when you have a kick ass marketing budget and no critical journalists you can deliver anything to them and they will pay through the nose.

[o Ventus]

JamesFaith wrote...

And that I call hypocrite. You are speaking about vileness of leaving out a word to change meaning of sentence and then you left out "on anything" part in your argumentation, which completely changing meaning of sentence too.  

The "about anything" part is a given. It would be redundant to express it again. 

Regardless, iakus is right.

[Morlath]

chemiclord wrote...

Well, I've KINDA talked about this before, but I think there were several factors involved that gave us that disjointed bag of filth, but I think the two biggest ones are:

1) They had no idea how they were going to end this thing when they started. Even if you take Karpyshyn for his word that it was ALWAYS going to be about organic/synthetic conflict and the Reapers... that is a distressingly broad concept for an ending. The fact they were STILL throwing out different potential routes IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT OF ME2 is excrutiatingly poor planning.

I mean... it hurts my brain to think about. Even if you buy the explanation that they had no idea if they were going to extend the series past ME1, that is NO excuse to not have a framework in place. Playing it by ear is a very dangerous way to tell a story... and only the most masterful and improvisational writers can pull it off.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. It might not make much logical sense and it's certainly a great thing to bash over the developers' heads but it's a non-issue.

Anyone who has had anything to do with creative writing knows that you don't need to know how a story ends before you start and a great number of creative works (from the classics downwards) could even have their endings unknown 3/4 of the way through the writing process.

Not even the fact that the game is episodic counts against this as episodic story arcs can be exactly the same.The main genre where it's recommended to follow what you've said are mysteries and, once again, this isn't always the case.

This argument doesn't hold water if it's used to attack the ME3 ending and neither is the "they wrote themselves into a corner". From ME1 we're introduced to a species that are incredibly difficult to kill which means there was always going to be a very extraordinary method to end the series.

2) The number of permutations simply became too much to handle. Think of all the triggers and choices and decisions that could have been in play by the end of ME2. The sheer number of scenarios that had to be accounted for had reached the MILLIONS (something that also ties with the poor planning of the trilogy as a whole).

They had to "compress" the story simply to make it fit budget and size constraints... but at the same time, didn't want to players to think there was a "canon" path. Their answer to this was a disasterous one; the barest of foundations, then asking players to build the rest of the house.

I don't think time really had too much to do with it (the they were rushed excuse)... I think the only thing that another extension from EA would have done was give us something closer to the Extended Cut at release... better, but still a pretty tepid and disconnected pile.

This is another argument that I just don't see as being valid. Why should a game, even if it allows for player choices, allow for every choice to be taken into account at the end of the story? The story itself is restrictive.

Shepard is trying to stop a galactic war. The only ways this ends is if Shepard dies along the way, stops the war or decides not to (for whatever reason). When someone is put at the point where they can end conflict, the overall mentality of the person (para/reneg) affects their decision, not the specific decisions they've made a game or two back.

[Medievalist]

 Interesting read. And actually, this sentence caused some grim laughter:

We'd never have imagined that as we ended the trilogy, all people would want to do was spend more time with the characters, sort of bathing in the afterglow - getting closure and just having some time to live in the universe that they fought to save."

Well, we still can't, can we? The Citadel DLC (which to this day I refuse to spend money on) takes place during the whole process of saving the galaxy, not after it is actually saved. 

[Nightwriter]

chemiclord wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Really Hudson -

"We'd never have imagined that as we ended the trilogy, all people would want to do was spend more time with the characters, sort of bathing in the afterglow - getting closure"

Getting character closure never went past them? Their games have been known for the characters exceeding expectations, compared to their pretty simplistic stories.

Ya know, with the way that they had seen players create such detailed Shepard characters with complete backstories, goals, and desires... is it completely out there that Bioware thought leaving so many things open to interpretation for such players to fashion their own "epilogue" was something that the players could appreciate?

Considering how much ME3 crams everyone onto some fairly narrow rails due to limitations... they thought maybe giving a more blank slate "after the war" would be seen as an attempted olive branch?

That's what I read into it, at any rate.

You mean, is it possible they kept the ending vague out of consideration for player investment when they have just admitted they did not consider player investment well enough? Dunno.

[drayfish]

N7 Shadow 90 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

But why Horde mode?

In the interview, Casey says that they looked at co-op in the main story, where players would take control of squad members, but it didn't seem that anybody would want to play as just a supporting player in someone else's game. He also says that they thought of some kind of PvP in ME2, but it didn't fit with the secretive battle against the Collector's in Shepard's story.

I don't see what else they could of done except a wave by wave mode. I personally love it and think that it fits really well with the whole theme of the Galaxy united, battling the Reapers.

I've completely lost interest in hearing Bioware's mealymouthed redefinitions of the 'lessons' to be learned from the clusterfun of ME3.  At this point its becoming an absurdist riff on how to spin reality to your own preconception.  It's like a dada performance piece.

Sure, sure.  All everyone wanted was blue babies and the chance to crack wise with your buddies all day.  Forget about all that narrative cohesion and thematic consistency stuff - just concentrate on the shameless pandering.  I'm sure that'll go great for you in the future.

One thing thing I do want to call nonsense on, however, is the blatant fraud in this dismissal of co-op multiplayer.

Nobody would want to play support in someone else's game, Bioware?

Nobody in the world would want to play as Garrus?

As Garrus?

Nobody?

You hang your lying heads in shame.

angol fear wrote...

So I'm insane? I'm actually literature teacher, cinema critic and writer. I think I know a little what I'm talking about. So yes, the standard of writing in video game is low and yes, Mass Effect 3 (original ending) is the highest level of writing ever seen in the video game history but to understand that you need to understand literature from its origins till the experimental books in the 20th century, you need to understand what is the strucutralism to make a real analysis of Mass Effect you need to understand the theories of reception... I stop here : there's so much to explain to you and I don't have time to do this. You can dislike Mass Effect 3 but I wouldn't be proud to show my ignorance like you did and, most important, the way you did.

Don't do that.  It's asinine and you embarrass yourself. 

I'm not even going to address how wildly I disagree with your assessment - I'm just going to observe that if you can't make your point without flashing your credentials, it's probable that you don't have anything substantive to say in the first place.

Grow up.

Modifié par drayfish, 09 mai 2013 - 11:26 .

[ElSuperGecko]

I hope by "lessons learned" they don't mean "from now on we appeal to the lowest common denominator".

[drayfish]

Medievalist wrote...

 Interesting read. And actually, this sentence caused some grim laughter:

We'd never have imagined that as we ended the trilogy, all people would want to do was spend more time with the characters, sort of bathing in the afterglow - getting closure and just having some time to live in the universe that they fought to save."

Well, we still can't, can we? The Citadel DLC (which to this day I refuse to spend money on) takes place during the whole process of saving the galaxy, not after it is actually saved. 

This also depends utterly on whether you consider that the universe could in fact be 'saved'.

None of the endings Bioware provided left me with a universe I even recognised, let alone thought was 'saved'.


EDIT:

I've also realised that literally no one at Bioware knows what the term 'bittersweet' means.

Modifié par drayfish, 09 mai 2013 - 11:33 .

[Jadebaby]

do people actually read the crap they spew still?

[Archonsg]

I tend to have more confidence in the Dragon Age team than that of the ME team.

*Both* uses PR speak but DA's team's words just sound less disingenuous.
Also that they seem to be really taking the time to do DA3 right so, I am more inclined to believe that team.

ME3's team hower just seems a little too snide, a little too quick to hedge what they say with the possibility that the player is at fault.

At this point, it us best to take a step back and wait for the actual work released before making any judgment calls.

Will it be any good?
We won't know till we play it.

Have they truly understood that it wasn't butterflies, candy floss and unicorns that we were after in the regards of the ending?
That remains to be seen.

Would the next ME game be worth buying on day one or on pre-orders?
That is the multi million dollar question, isn't it?
That is what all this is about, to convince fans that the next ME game would be worth spending on. 

This time though I personally am at the "no first day, no pre-orders" list of customers and would recommend anyone to do the same.

Why?
Simply because given what has happened in ME3, and how things were handled, I am still a dissatisfied customer and until I have physical proof that they "have learned their lesson" from the ME3 debacle, there is no reason why I should spend a premium for a Bioware game. 

Modifié par Archonsg, 09 mai 2013 - 11:51 .

[PinkysPain]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

I hope by "lessons learned" they don't mean "from now on we appeal to the lowest common denominator".

If the alternative is ME3 single player then I'd consider it an improvement.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 09 mai 2013 - 11:59 .

[tamperous]

Their sin wasn't making a bad ending. Their sin was making sad sack excuses for their crappy work. It was choosing a PR angle that circled the wagons and claiming their work was high art.

The most foolish thing of all was choosing something as ridiculous as artistic integrity as a defense. There is a powerful meme of arrogant, out of touch artists ridiculing audiences who apparently don't understand their work. Why Bioware's PR folks chose to hitch their wagon on something that could so easily be attacked is one of the great mysteries of this whole thing.

Until they disavow this failed PR campaign I can't see myself getting drawn in to pre-ordering another product from them.

Modifié par tamperous, 09 mai 2013 - 12:02 .

[ConanTheLeader]

The directors cut was them learning from their mistakes and it was a great ending, people just moan that a galaxy wide war could not have a disney ending where everyone lives.