1470 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

Scalabrine wrote...

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.

I was always going to be a bit upset because it was the last we'd see of them but that wouldn't be something that could be rationally complained about. Whilst people might sometimes go on about it being terrible that it is the end and keep pestering for more (I agree and disagree - I want a lot more of Shepard and Co. but it's time for a new story) they don't direct that unhappiness into lambasting the content instead.

[Reorte]

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.

No, because that assumes that just saying something is either fine or the problem. What is said obviously matters a great deal. For example saying "'We should not have done a bittersweet ending" is a problem because it shows a great deal of misunderstanding about the complaints - whether it even was bittersweet, and the whole "only one style of outcome" thing for example. It's like the removal of various elements from ME1 that people objected to - people didn't like the fiddly inventory or the horrible samey terrain to lug the Mako over, so the response was "People don't like customisation and exploration, so we'll remove them."

[EpicBoot2daFace]

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.

You have to keep in mind that BioWare is known for not wanting to admit mistakes were made or trying to admit mistakes were made without actually admitting it. They could have leveled with the fans and said "Yeah, we screwed up and we'll try harder next time." That's all that needed to be said. But instead they defended their flawed work and acted like everyone else "just didn't get it."

Also keep in mind that they did the same thing with Dragon Age 2. All criticism leveled towards that game was met with resistance from BioWare, and that game was far worse than ME3. It isn't that BioWare doesn't listen to us. It's that they refuse to accept criticism openly.  Perhaps it's EA policy to not admit your mistakes until the next game is about to come out, I don't know.

Compare their response to criticism with Bethesda's response when dealing with Skyrim on the PS3. They didn't blame Sony or act like there weren't any issues or bring up "artistic integrity." They openly said it was their fault and that they were trying their hardest to fix the issues and eventually did. That is how you respond to criticism. And while fans did give Bethesda a lot of **** (fans will always complain about something), I still think they appreciated their honesty in the end.

BioWare needs to stop putting up a sound proof wall every time someone has a legitimate criticism. Acknowledging these flaws a year or two after the game comes out is not going to make people happy, and neither will having your lead designer make excuses and deflect criticism like Mike Laidlaw did in his "Dragon Age 2 defense" article.

[CronoDragoon]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Compare their response to criticism with Bethesda's response when dealing with Skyrim on the PS3. They didn't blame Sony or act like there weren't any issues or bring up "artistic integrity." They openly said it was their fault and that they were trying their hardest to fix the issues and eventually did. That is how you respond to criticism. And while fans did give Bethesda a lot of **** (fans will always complain about something), I still think they appreciated their honesty in the end.

Big difference between admitting the glitchiness of a game and the case of ME3's ending. If they don't believe that the ending choices were a screw-up then there's no point in expecting them to. That doesn't mean you must think the endings are good, though. You just need to realize there's a difference of opinion. Aspects of the ending that are less situated in subjective analysis have been acknowledged.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 12 mai 2013 - 10:40 .

[Iakus]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

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.

Because that's a gross general;ization of the overall problems.

Even if we only deal with Shepard, and not the Catalyst and RGB chcoies (which are a major problem in themselves) What people wanted was a greater variety of outcomes for Shepard.  Some where Shepard lived, others where Shepard died.

In Dragon ge Origins, you can have the Warden sacrifice him/herself to save Thedas, complete with funeral.  Was there rage about that?  No.  Because there were other sacrifices that could be made to avoid that fate.  And these outcomes are not necessarilly "better" than that (people may have individual preferences, of course) 

In essence, it's not a hatred of "bittersweet" endings, it's a disgust for having someone else's idea of a bittersweet ending rammed down our collective throats.  And no still shot of Zaeed in a lawn chair is going to change that.

And of course, there's the choice posed by the Catalyst.  Again, we are told to "speculate" about these outcomes.  Yet when that speculation ends up leading down some very dark roads, we get told "Nono, you're doing it wrong!  You're not supposed to speculate about that"  Which shows how little thought went into designing those choices.

tl, dr, "the audience doesn't like bittersweet endings" isn't the issue.  "The audience doesn't like railroaded and arbitrary endings" is far more accurate.

Modifié par iakus, 12 mai 2013 - 10:51 .

[IanPolaris]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Also keep in mind that they did the same thing with Dragon Age 2. All criticism leveled towards that game was met with resistance from BioWare, and that game was far worse than ME3. It isn't that BioWare doesn't listen to us. It's that they refuse to accept criticism openly.  Perhaps it's EA policy to not admit your mistakes until the next game is about to come out, I don't know.

They did for a long time with DA][ true, but eventually most (not all) those involved in DA2 admitted that there were serious flaws not just with some minor things (like Paratrooping Templars and repeating Dungeons) but other, more serious thematic issues as well.  I might disagree to the degree the DA2 team (as a whole) has come clean, and not all have come clean, but on the whole Bioware has admitted (grudgingly, slowly, and painfully true) that DA2 could have been better in a lot of very specific ways, and we at least saw evidence in the DLCs that some of this was taken to heart (specifically Legacy).  That said, I am still not pleased with a lot of the direction that DAI seems to be going in, but IMHO that is another topic and due IMO to at least a few people in particular that still don't seem to be able to admit that DA2 wasn't all that great a game.

By contrast, what we are seeing thus far in Me3 is a complete mis/non-understanding of what the problem is (and bittersweet endings wasn't it).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

iakus wrote...

In Dragon ge Origins, you can have the Warden sacrifice him/herself to save Thedas, complete with funeral.  Was there rage about that?  No.  Because there were other sacrifices that could be made to avoid that fate.  And these outcomes are not necessarilly "better" than that (people may have individual preferences, of course) 

Not only that, but the idea you'd might have to sacrifice yourself was telegraphed well in advance, and you could see (at that funeral scene) the differences you had made, and you made the sacrifice willingly because you (the player) decided that you felt the other options were worse (for whatever reason).

Choosing makes all the difference.

-Polaris

[Reorte]

On the whole "bittersweet" thing it's telling that about the only part of the ending that doesn't come in for criticism is Anderson's death.

[Bleachrude]

All the complaints about the ending come down to 1 aspect.

There's no perfect ending aka everyone lives. If destroy didn't affect the geth and EDI, the complaints about the ending would be seriously muted as that would be the perfect choice.

So I'm a little dubious about complaints about how catalyst/ending since for MANY (not all), the biggest problem is not the AI at the end or even the fact that there were 3 choices. The simple fact that none was perfect was the problem,

Personally, I'm ok with that, but honestly many aren't.

[crimzontearz]

I loved how In on zuhr publicly said DA][ was rushed and every dev posting on the boards said otherwise for the longest time....

honesty is such an underrated quality

[crimzontearz]

Bleachrude wrote...

All the complaints about the ending come down to 1 aspect.

There's no perfect ending aka everyone lives. If destroy didn't affect the geth and EDI, the complaints about the ending would be seriously muted as that would be the perfect choice.

So I'm a little dubious about complaints about how catalyst/ending since for MANY (not all), the biggest problem is not the AI at the end or even the fact that there were 3 choices. The simple fact that none was perfect was the problem,

Personally, I'm ok with that, but honestly many aren't.

uh....no...I only wanted a proper reunion scene for high ems destroy....the rest of the galaxy can burn for all I care

[IanPolaris]

Reorte wrote...

On the whole "bittersweet" thing it's telling that about the only part of the ending that doesn't come in for criticism is Anderson's death.

Which ironically is about as bittersweet as it gets (esp when you consider Kaylee Sanders).  Speaking only for myself, I fully expected my Shepard to die one way or the other.  I suspect a lot of people that played ME3 had prety much come to that conclusion as well.

However, if your character has to die, then he (or she) should die well, and it should be a death of our choosing, and we should be able to see and feel the effects and consequences of that sacrifice.  DAO did this brilliantly IMO.  ME3.....um...not so much.

-Polaris

[Reorte]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Big difference between admitting the glitchiness of a game and the case of ME3's ending. If they don't believe that the ending choices were a screw-up then there's no point in expecting them to. That doesn't mean you must think the endings are good, though. You just need to realize there's a difference of opinion. Aspects of the ending that are less situated in subjective analysis have been acknowledged.

It's sad though that there was never any interest in fixing a lot of the glitches that did exist and were entirely objective (and they said as much that they had no interest in doing so) - things like vanishing rocks and Exorcist heads. Would be nice to not get glued to the floor when going to chat with Joker and EDI too.

[IanPolaris]

crimzontearz wrote...

I loved how In on zuhr publicly said DA][ was rushed and every dev posting on the boards said otherwise for the longest time....

honesty is such an underrated quality

This was part of what I was talking about how the DA][ team has slowly started to come clean.  I even recall a post by Priestly recently doing a Mea Culpa in this regard not too long ago.

-Polaris

[Iakus]

Bleachrude wrote...

All the complaints about the ending come down to 1 aspect.

There's no perfect ending aka everyone lives. If destroy didn't affect the geth and EDI, the complaints about the ending would be seriously muted as that would be the perfect choice.

So I'm a little dubious about complaints about how catalyst/ending since for MANY (not all), the biggest problem is not the AI at the end or even the fact that there were 3 choices. The simple fact that none was perfect was the problem,

Personally, I'm ok with that, but honestly many aren't.

It's not that the geth and EDI die, but because Shepard has to essentially stab them in the back.

Again going back to Dragon Age: Origins, The Warden can die, or another character can offer to take the Warden's place.  Willingly.  They know they will die in doing this.

If in the Destroy ending, the Catalyst decides to try and stop Shepard, send a bunch of Reapers to destroy the Crucible, and the geth and EDI sacrificed themselves to ensure the Crucible fired, that would have been perfectly acceptable.  Or heck, if Shepard was able to warn them ahead of time, giving them a chance to say goodbye, that would have been...tolerable.

Edit:  And this leaves aside the fact that in Destroy, there are no Reapers to help rebuild the relay network.  The other races are totally on their own in that.  So Destroyers are doubly punished.

Modifié par iakus, 12 mai 2013 - 11:05 .

[Reorte]

Bleachrude wrote...

All the complaints about the ending come down to 1 aspect.

There's no perfect ending aka everyone lives. If destroy didn't affect the geth and EDI, the complaints about the ending would be seriously muted as that would be the perfect choice.

So I'm a little dubious about complaints about how catalyst/ending since for MANY (not all), the biggest problem is not the AI at the end or even the fact that there were 3 choices. The simple fact that none was perfect was the problem,

Personally, I'm ok with that, but honestly many aren't.

That's missing the point, I feel. The deaths of the geth and EDI just seemed contrived, thrown in there to make it non-perfect and not because they were an inveitable result of the story. If Destroy had been something that gave an edge over the Reapers, to lead to eventual victory but still at the cost of many, many lives and worlds I believe there would've been far fewer complaints on that aspect, mostly because it would've made a hell of a lot more sense. Indeed, a final choice between Control, with clearly spelled-out risks of it all blowing up in the future but no more casualties now, or Destroy, with the certainty of eventual victory, but at a heavy price, would've made a much better final decision (although I don't really think it should come down to just one last-minute decision anyway, but that's a separate issue).

[IanPolaris]

iakus wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

All the complaints about the ending come down to 1 aspect.

There's no perfect ending aka everyone lives. If destroy didn't affect the geth and EDI, the complaints about the ending would be seriously muted as that would be the perfect choice.

So I'm a little dubious about complaints about how catalyst/ending since for MANY (not all), the biggest problem is not the AI at the end or even the fact that there were 3 choices. The simple fact that none was perfect was the problem,

Personally, I'm ok with that, but honestly many aren't.

It's not that the geth and EDI die, but because Shepard has to essentially stab them in the back.

Again going back to Dragon Age: Origins, The Warden can die, or another character can offer to take the Warden's place.  Willingly.  They know they will die in doing this.

If in the Destroy ending, the Catalyst decides to try and stop Shepard, send a bunch of Reapers to destroy the Crucible, and the geth and EDI sacrificed themselves to ensure the Crucible fired, that would have been perfectly acceptable.  Or heck, if Shepard was able to warn them ahead of time, giving them a chance to say goodbye, that would have been...tolerable.

Exactly.  In fact given what both Legion and EDI have said elsewhere, I am fully confident that they both would have told Shepard to "shoot the tube" given that it would mean the Reaper threat would be destroyed forever.

They should have been given that chance to tell Shepard this at the time.

-Polaris

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...
It's like the removal of various elements from ME1 that people objected to - people didn't like the fiddly inventory or the horrible samey terrain to lug the Mako over, so the response was "People don't like customisation and exploration, so we'll remove them."

In the case of the terrain, are you sure the answer wasn't that expending enough resources to do exploration right just wasn't worth it? The whole point of the ME1 design was to get cheap exploration. If that doesn't work out, it doesn't therefore follow that you should implement more expensive exploration, when the plot of the game isn't actually about exploration.

And inventory might have been the same process. What I took away from the ME1 system was that Bio really didn't believe in making a lot of different items in different tiers on the merits, so they implemented the reskins and statistical progression as a way to get the feature in without thinking too much about it.

[IanPolaris]

Reorte wrote...

That's missing the point, I feel. The deaths of the geth and EDI just seemed contrived, thrown in there to make it non-perfect and not because they were an inveitable result of the story. If Destroy had been something that gave an edge over the Reapers, to lead to eventual victory but still at the cost of many, many lives and worlds I believe there would've been far fewer complaints on that aspect, mostly because it would've made a hell of a lot more sense. Indeed, a final choice between Control, with clearly spelled-out risks of it all blowing up in the future but no more casualties now, or Destroy, with the certainty of eventual victory, but at a heavy price, would've made a much better final decision (although I don't really think it should come down to just one last-minute decision anyway, but that's a separate issue).

Indeed, the deaths of the Geth and EDI seemed contrived probably because they were.  We know that Casey and Hudson wanted us to pick the Synthesis ending and that the Synthesis ending was supposed to be the "good" ending, but the entire trilogy all up to this point had been "to destroy the Reapers" (while convicing those including TIM that control the Reapers was too dangerous/not an option).

Thus in order to keep the player for automatically picking destroy, they had to [INSERT UNACCEPTABLE WAR CRIME HERE] to keep this from happening.

-Polaris

P.S.  The ending of ME3 really should be called "Choose your warcrime."

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...


Edit:  And this leaves aside the fact that in Destroy, there are no Reapers to help rebuild the relay network.  The other races are totally on their own in that.  So Destroyers are doubly punished.

And yet, it's still more popular. So the most popular choice needs to be made even better?

[IanPolaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

And inventory might have been the same process. What I took away from the ME1 system was that Bio really didn't believe in making a lot of different items in different tiers on the merits, so they implemented the reskins and statistical progression as a way to get the feature in without thinking too much about it.

And that (the bolded part) was the problem here.  The inventory system needed a complete overhaul, but what BW did in ME2 and 3 in response seemed cheap and lazy (at least to me).

-Polaris

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...


Edit:  And this leaves aside the fact that in Destroy, there are no Reapers to help rebuild the relay network.  The other races are totally on their own in that.  So Destroyers are doubly punished.

And yet, it's still more popular. So the most popular choice needs to be made even better?

It means arbitrary tragedy isn't fooling as many people as they thought, I guess.

[Bleachrude]

Which doesn't change the fact that if the destroy option had simply affected the reapers there wouldn't be as many complaints.

There would be definitely complaints since the ending would be seen as "well, that's out of left field" but there would be a LOT less which is what I'm trying to get across.

One thing I do agree though is that Bioware needs to remember that at the end of the game, players want to know what happened to the characters involved. Skyrim can get away without this since frankly, I don't think you're expected to get attached to the actual characters/world but in BW games, they REALLY do this nicely so yes, they should've had the extended cut endings already.

[IanPolaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...


Edit:  And this leaves aside the fact that in Destroy, there are no Reapers to help rebuild the relay network.  The other races are totally on their own in that.  So Destroyers are doubly punished.

And yet, it's still more popular. So the most popular choice needs to be made even better?

Frankly yes.  The whole point of the game up unti the last 10 minutes was the defeat the reapers.  The only two endings that stay true to this are destroy and refuse (and refuse is a glorified 'game over' screen that IMHO is a middle finger from the Devs to the fans)

-Polaris