1470 réponses à ce sujet

[RydeCrash]

I took the information from the interview as they are at least showing consistency from the information gained at Dragon Con last year. “Underestimated.”  Was the main description used at that Con’s panels on the fan reactions to ME3
 
Being as I was not visiting the ME forums before its release I cannot base the Fan Base atmosphere to how it is now. What was the community like before ME3? Did it take ME3’s issues to ignite the fans outcry and reveal just how influential ME was to the gaming community?
 
Ryde…

[Auld Wulf]

Saito404 wrote...

I don't get all the drama about "killing" EDI and Geth. They are just machines with AI program. Machine can be repaired, program can be rewritten.

You're just a biological machine. I've made this near perfect clone of you, there are some mild variations that occurred within the creation process, but those are acceptable. Since I have this near perfect clone of you that thinks and acts the same as you within a 90% level of accuracy, does that mean that I can now kill you?

Just because you don't understand how certain forms of life work, it doesn't give you the right to kill it simply because you don't understand. That is the very worst kind of ignorance.

[Kia Purity]

...

*just hangs her head and shakes a very emphatic NO, there's just no words at all*

[remydat]

Ajensis wrote...

To that first paragraph: that doesn't seem like a valid explanation for waving off the choices we'd made. I'm pretty sure Bioware didn't decide to make some statement on how decisions impact our lives, especially considering the fact that they told us that our choices would matter before ME3 was released. And even if they did, is it what you'd want? Personally, I'd prefer some quality entertainment over semi-philosophical statements. In fact, it's sort of a glum statement you're referring to, since we don't get the 2nd half that you included above: none of our minor decisions ended up having more importance than we ever anticipated (barely any importance at all). So what we end up with is, 'Your choices don't matter' - which sounds oddly familiar when discussing a certain (heavily debated) part of ME3.

I'm fairly confident Bioware didn't intend anything philosophical by not having many previous choices matter. They just ran out of resources to implement the different variables. That's fair enough, I can understand it and I'm not going to go on a crusade against them for it, however annoying certain parts were (e.g. the Rachni queen, as mentioned before). But trying to explain these shortcomings with 'That's how life works sometimes', now that won't do. That's obviously not what's going on here.

I do agree with you about the choices serving a purpose, like defining your Shepard's moral stances. I think that's pretty neat, and I don't need my choices to be world-changing afterwards. It's just a little insulting when a second Rachni queen is thrown in, not to mention the Biowre comment about the Rachni choice having an impact. I draw the line there.

But your choices do matter.  Sometimes they didn't just matter as much as you wanted.  The Second Rachni Queen issue is silly to me.  If you killed the Rachni that is your decision.  From an in universe perspective, why should that impact whether the Reapers create a new Rachni Queen? You are making decisions for your Shep not for the Reapers.  

Saving either of the Rachni Queens means a lot of the Krogan in Aralakh company die.  Maybe deciding between those Krogan and the Rachni is trivial to you but it was not to me.  People die because of my decision.  And worse is if it is the fake Queen you save then not only did the Krogan die but they basically die in vain because the fake Queen withdraws her aid and abandons the war. 

So exactly how does it not matter?  Sorry, the Rachni Queen is a terrible example IMO.  Your decision should not preclude the Reapers from trying to achieve its goals and worse yet apparently you trivialise choosing between the Krogan and Rachni as if those deaths are meaningless because they are not impactful enough for you.

[Scalabrine]

Bah! Their response was basically: "The fans were ****ing because it was the end of the series and they didn't want to lose that connection with their favorite characters".

Why do they keep thinking we're the problem? You made a crappy ending and you got blasted for it, simple as that.

Modifié par Scalabrine, 12 mai 2013 - 06:39 .

[Raizo]

I almost believed it when Hudson, Everman and Gamble said that lessons were learned from ME3, they certainly seem to be saying the right things this time and they seem to finally get it, the problem is almost every single other interview I have seen from Hudson and Gamble has come off as less then genuine, the way they stubbornly insist that nothing was wrong with ME3's endings, how the gamers that did not like it were a minority and how great thier game was.

[Ajensis]

remydat wrote...
But your choices do matter.  Sometimes they didn't just matter as much as you wanted.  The Second Rachni Queen issue is silly to me.  If you killed the Rachni that is your decision.  From an in universe perspective, why should that impact whether the Reapers create a new Rachni Queen? You are making decisions for your Shep not for the Reapers.  

Saving either of the Rachni Queens means a lot of the Krogan in Aralakh company die.  Maybe deciding between those Krogan and the Rachni is trivial to you but it was not to me.  People die because of my decision.  And worse is if it is the fake Queen you save then not only did the Krogan die but they basically die in vain because the fake Queen withdraws her aid and abandons the war. 

So exactly how does it not matter?  Sorry, the Rachni Queen is a terrible example IMO.  Your decision should not preclude the Reapers from trying to achieve its goals and worse yet apparently you trivialise choosing between the Krogan and Rachni as if those deaths are meaningless because they are not impactful enough for you.

Let's be honest here, the substitute Rachni queen wasn't brought in because it's some logical step for the Reapers to take. She was in the game because they needed the Ravager enemies introduced no matter what you did in ME1, as well as a mission for Grunt. Bioware took the easy way out and made a duplicate queen for that.
And what I meant by the choice on Noveria having an impact, I meant in regards to the ending. I was a bit too vague there, I guess, but at least it had a positive side effect: I wasn't in fact aware that the substitute Rachni queen would abandon your cause. I'll have to check that combination out at some point (not saving the original queen, but saving the new one in ME3) but anyway, as I said, I was referring to the ending, but we're terribly off-topic at this point. At least some new light was (for me) shed on the Rachni mission in ME3, however lazy its premise is.

Edit to add: since we're talking about the rachni mission in ME3, I'll just say this: despite the different outcomes for having saved or killed the first queen, the choice at the end of the Rachni mission still doesn't matter. If you save her, what then? You get Rachni as war assets (unless, apparently, she's the breeder), and an e-mail. You never see them actually doing anything for the war, and its only practical difference is a number for the EMS. An impact? In theory, but it's so small and meaningless.
You mention the Aralakh company, and to tell you the truth, I almost always abandon the queen to save the remaining krogan. I don't particularly love krogan as a species, but I like the thought of this company being the best of the best. And I've seen these guys standing in front of me, I've seen Grunt order them around. This means I care a little more about them than the Rachni queen.
It's a shame that a choice like this should feel so empty, but it does. Had they only implemented a real difference between saving the rachni and the Aralakh Company, it would've enhanced everything about that mission, and in return the game itself. Instead, it doesn't really matter.

Modifié par Ajensis, 12 mai 2013 - 07:50 .

[RiptideX1090]

Raizo wrote...

I almost believed it when Hudson, Everman and Gamble said that lessons were learned from ME3, they certainly seem to be saying the right things this time and they seem to finally get it, the problem is almost every single other interview I have seen from Hudson and Gamble has come off as less then genuine, the way they stubbornly insist that nothing was wrong with ME3's endings, how the gamers that did not like it were a minority and how great thier game was.

I am going to school to be a game developer, and one of the most consistant things all of the instructors (all of them have worked in the industry at some level) tell you is no matter what you did, didn't do, had, didn't have, how good or bad your project is, you stand by it. Even if it's garbage, you stand by your product to your dying breath. You take what feedback you get and you use it to improve next time, but you always stand by each project no matter what.

So I can understand why they choose to play it the way they did. Honestly, them saying 'look, we know we should have made ME3 more about the characters and instead of playing it bittersweet we plan to keep that in mind for the future,' is about all you can expect them to give while standing by their game, and as long as they're true to that statement, I'm fine with moving on and seeing what they do. Because the only thing they can do now is look at this and remember it when making the next game. Until then, staying pissed isn't doing anyone any good, not us, not them. And if they decide to go back on their word and continue with the 'artsy and depressing' endings, well, people aren't going to be playing their games anymore, are they? We as fans have made that clear, going by all the vitriol on these forums.

So, let's wait and see. Nothing else we can do, they've clearly heard us going by the EC, Citadel, and now this, all we can do is hope they keep it in mind for the next installment.

[remydat]

Ajensis,

Why would it not be logical? If I knew that the Rachni almost wiped out the galaxy because I made them do it and I have their DNA, why wouldn't I create Rachni to help wipe out the galaxy? The Reapers have billions of years of genetic research to call upon.

And I knew you meant the ending but you can't have every decision massively affect the ending. Although even here it does affect the ending.

If Shepard chooses to activate the Crucible, the real Queen was spared twice, and the krogan were denied the real cure for their genophage, the rachni will be seen settling their spindly limbs on the ruins of a desolate Tuchanka.

So again, maybe not the massive impact you wanted but it does impact things.

Modifié par remydat, 12 mai 2013 - 08:15 .

[SpamBot2000]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

I am going to school to be a game developer, and one of the most consistant things all of the instructors (all of them have worked in the industry at some level) tell you is no matter what you did, didn't do, had, didn't have, how good or bad your project is, you stand by it. Even if it's garbage, you stand by your product to your dying breath. You take what feedback you get and you use it to improve next time, but you always stand by each project no matter what.

That seems like a terrible lesson for young people. Preparation for living in lies. I guess those units don't worry much about the soul.

[Bill Casey]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

I am going to school to be a game developer, and one of the most consistant things all of the instructors (all of them have worked in the industry at some level) tell you is no matter what you did, didn't do, had, didn't have, how good or bad your project is, you stand by it. Even if it's garbage, you stand by your product to your dying breath. You take what feedback you get and you use it to improve next time, but you always stand by each project no matter what.

That's horrible advice...
They're asking you to go down with the ship...

[crimzontearz]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

RiptideX1090 wrote...

I am going to school to be a game developer, and one of the most consistant things all of the instructors (all of them have worked in the industry at some level) tell you is no matter what you did, didn't do, had, didn't have, how good or bad your project is, you stand by it. Even if it's garbage, you stand by your product to your dying breath. You take what feedback you get and you use it to improve next time, but you always stand by each project no matter what.

That seems like a terrible lesson for young people. Preparation for living in lies. I guess those units don't worry much about the soul.

Silicon knights did that with too humans....I can't wait to see how they implement the feedback in the next game....oh wait

[Hurbster]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Saito404 wrote...

I don't get all the drama about "killing" EDI and Geth. They are just machines with AI program. Machine can be repaired, program can be rewritten.

You're just a biological machine. I've made this near perfect clone of you, there are some mild variations that occurred within the creation process, but those are acceptable. Since I have this near perfect clone of you that thinks and acts the same as you within a 90% level of accuracy, does that mean that I can now kill you?

Just because you don't understand how certain forms of life work, it doesn't give you the right to kill it simply because you don't understand. That is the very worst kind of ignorance.

No, ignorance is thinking that a 90% accurate clone is 'near perfect'.  And we are NOT just biological machines. 

[RiptideX1090]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

That seems like a terrible lesson for young people. Preparation for living in lies. I guess those units don't worry much about the soul.

I thought so at first, but I see the point they're making. Because in the industry, your first goal before everything else is keeping your job. Yeah, you can sit there and say "I'm in this for the art!" all you want, but it won't feed you or your family for long without having the funds to back it up. You never want to look week in front of your investors. Ever.

So, what do you do?

Do you come out and say: "We failed, Mass Effect 3 ended horribly, we clearly can't write, we suck and shoudln't be allowed to make games anymore!" Do this and you get fired and everyone remembers how horribly your franchise died and you're out of a career.

Or do you turn it around and say: "We didn't realize how much our fans loved our characters, and in the future we will be doing a better job of addressing this passion so as to create a more rewarding experience." Do this and you market the backlash as something positive, citing what you did get right, you keep your job, and you can keep your franchise alive for another game where you can redeem yourself.

In a perfect world, publishers like EA would understand and be more forgiving, there would be no need for playing things diplomatically and everyone could just afford to be as blunt as they want and good games would keep being made, but it doesn't work that way in practice. The best you can do is game the system and let your actions speak, which I think Citadel does, and hopefully it's that direction they'll be going in the future.

[RiptideX1090]

crimzontearz wrote...
Silicon knights did that with too humans....I can't wait to see how they implement the feedback in the next game....oh wait

Which only emphasizes my point. It's hard to keep your head above water even when you play the game. If you don't even try though, you have zero chance in hell.

[crimzontearz]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
Silicon knights did that with too humans....I can't wait to see how they implement the feedback in the next game....oh wait

Which only emphasizes my point. It's hard to keep your head above water even when you play the game. If you don't even try though, you have zero chance in hell.

the game received awful reviews, they kept saying it was awesome....

then Xmen destiny comes out....even worse than Too Human


and now they are practically gone out of business....there are plenty more examples, good developers admit when they screw up

[SpamBot2000]

Even Blizzard said they would remove the real money auction house from Diablo 3 if they could. Because it screws with game objectives, and makes it less rewarding to play. Much like they were told it would before launch. Oh well.

But hey, I'm sure Diablo 4 will be GOTY of 2025.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 12 mai 2013 - 08:38 .

[Megaton_Hope]

remydat wrote...

Ajensis,

Why would it not be logical? If I knew that the Rachni almost wiped out the galaxy because I made them do it and I have their DNA, why wouldn't I create Rachni to help wipe out the galaxy? The Reapers have billions of years of genetic research to call upon.

And I knew you meant the ending but you can't have every decision massively affect the ending. Although even here it does affect the ending.

If Shepard chooses to activate the Crucible, the real Queen was spared twice, and the krogan were denied the real cure for their genophage, the rachni will be seen settling their spindly limbs on the ruins of a desolate Tuchanka.

So again, maybe not the massive impact you wanted but it does impact things.

I don't consider the third game to consist of still images that were added after the official conclusion had been finalized. In-game, you kill the Rachni Queen instead of freeing her, and then you're confronted with an option to kill the Rachni Queen or free her.

That is a repetition of our task, to quote Kirrahe.

Reaper Easy-bake DNA aside, it's just pretty tacky to craft the narrative that way.

[o Ventus]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

I thought so at first, but I see the point they're making. Because in the industry, your first goal before everything else is keeping your job. Yeah, you can sit there and say "I'm in this for the art!" all you want, but it won't feed you or your family for long without having the funds to back it up. You never want to look week in front of your investors. Ever.

Which is why hiding behind "artistic vision" is stupid.

Do you come out and say: "We failed, Mass Effect 3 ended horribly, we clearly can't write, we suck and shoudln't be allowed to make games anymore!" Do this and you get fired and everyone remembers how horribly your franchise died and you're out of a career.

There's a fundamental difference between admitting a mistake and sh**ting on your own creative integrity.

Or do you turn it around and say: "We didn't realize how much our fans loved our characters, and in the future we will be doing a better job of addressing this passion so as to create a more rewarding experience." Do this and you market the backlash as something positive, citing what you did get right, you keep your job, and you can keep your franchise alive for another game where you can redeem yourself.

This isn't "marketing the backlash as something positive". Backlash is, by definition, negative. Trying to spin backlash over something as positive only serves to make you (not specifically "you") look like a f***ing moron, as has been amply shown in this thread.

[o Ventus]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

But hey, I'm sure Diablo 4 will be GOTY of 2025.

Right up there with HL2: Episode 3.

[Hurbster]

Didn't Dyack attempt to take on Neogaf because they gave Too Human a bad review and got his ass handed to him ?

[crimzontearz]

Hurbster wrote...

Didn't Dyack attempt to take on Neogaf because they gave Too Human a bad review and got his ass handed to him ?

not sure....sounds right

sad, I was totally looking forward to it

[The Night Mammoth]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
Silicon knights did that with too humans....I can't wait to see how they implement the feedback in the next game....oh wait

Which only emphasizes my point. It's hard to keep your head above water even when you play the game. If you don't even try though, you have zero chance in hell.

Yeah, but it's a double-edged sword. 

BioWare is the perfect example. They did stand by their work, though they executed their stance terribly by remaining almost entirely silent on the matter but that's a different point, but standing by their work has alienated people. It stepped past pride in the results of their efforts, and into arrogance in a lot of people's eyes.

Whether people's specific problems had merit or not is largely irrelevant, to be fair; the obvious point despite that is that there was obviously something wrong to make so many people upset.

Sticking up for your efforts is one thing, but refusing to even open a dialogue and admit that there might have been a problem is something else entirely. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 12 mai 2013 - 08:50 .

[RiptideX1090]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sticking up for your efforts is one thing, but refusing to even open a dialogue and admit that there might have been a problem is something else entirely. 

And what could they have said to make things better? Would it have made anything better?

Even here, where they basically say 'we should not have done a bittersweet ending, we will do better next time,' people are still happily jumping all over them.

It's a no win situation. Every time they opened their mouths, it has done no good. The only option left then is to bury their heads, keep quiet and work to make sure the next game they put out doesn't have the same problem. Hell, I imagine the only reason they're even coming out and admitting this much is because of both Citadel, and because their current project is finally at a place where they feel comfortable pulling their heads out of the sand long enough to say with confidence that 'yes, we learned, and we are putting it into practice'.

Again, you can get as mad as you want at their handling of the situation, I certainly won't blame you. I know their thinking and it still pisses me off to no end, too, but what does all that vitriol get anyone? Nothing. They heard us, they admitted they want to do better next time, all that's left now is to hope they took the right lessons to heart, which we won't know for certain until the next project is released.

Until then, I'm going to quietly support them in the hopes they are sincere and really want to make up for letting us down. If they're not, well, I wont' buy, it's as simple as that. Until then, I am doing the only thing I can, keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for the best.

[crimzontearz]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Sticking up for your efforts is one thing, but refusing to even open a dialogue and admit that there might have been a problem is something else entirely. 

And what could they have said to make things better? Would it have made anything better?

Even here, where they basically say 'we should not have done a bittersweet ending, we will do better next time,' people are still happily jumping all over them.

It's a no win situation. Every time they opened their mouths, it has done no good. The only option left then is to bury their heads, keep quiet and work to make sure the next game they put out doesn't have the same problem. Hell, I imagine the only reason they're even coming out and admitting this much is because of both Citadel, and because their current project is finally at a place where they feel comfortable pulling their heads out of the sand long enough to say with confidence that 'yes, we learned, and we are putting it into practice'.

Again, you can get as mad as you want at their handling of the situation, I certainly won't blame you. I know their thinking and it still pisses me off to no end, too, but what does all that vitriol get anyone? Nothing. They heard us, they admitted they want to do better next time, all that's left now is to hope they took the right lessons to heart, which we won't know for certain until the next project is released.

Until then, I'm going to quietly support them in the hopes they are sincere and really want to make up for letting us down. If they're not, well, I wont' buy, it's as simple as that. Until then, I am doing the only thing I can, keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for the best.

funny...some bioware devs apologized about some screw ups....they did not, they actually managed to make their statements feeling condescending and borderline insulting (least to me)