1470 réponses à ce sujet

[drayfish]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That is slanted data at best.  ME3 had a very successful MP component with an extremely successful microtransaction model that essentially had nothing to do with the SP game (other than the very basic setting).  Comparing this to games without such components and only the Sp campaigns is like comparing apples to kumquats.

I would guess that ME3 is as successful as it is because of the MP component which is one reason I have very little faith in what's coming down the pike for the franchise (or in Bioware's direction in general).

-Polaris

Whether it is slanted or not is irrelevant.  Prove it.  Until it no longer makes them money, expecting a for profit company to care about fan complaints is silly.  They are not a charity.  You say you are the majority then prove it by not buying the next game in enough numbers that it makes a dent to their bottom line.  

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

So popularity trumps fan feedback. Thus, if my game is popular, I don't have to listen to valid criticism?

This always ends well.

Of course it does.  They are in it for profits not fan feedback.  Fan feedback doesn't pay bills.  You want to be heard then express your opinion with your money.  That is and has always been the only viable solution in a capitalist society.

A business model that overlooks, and effectively alienates, the guaranteed, ongoing sales that a core fanbase privides is not a wise 'capitalist' move - if you really do want to strip out the 'artistic' component of the argument.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Both.

Not all people will have the Leviathan DLC.  That means for THOSE Shepards, you are using data for your argument that doesn't exist.  Futhermore on a meta level, Leviathan was made AFTER the ending Snafu, so you are using an ex-post facto fix/information to justify the state of a game.

In the game, Shepard has no reason to believe anything the reapers say.  They can, do, and have lied like rugs to him and others often with horrifyingly effective results.  That would be reason enough not to trust anything the starkid says once it admits that it is the controlling intelligence of the Reapers.  Not only that, but you are not told how this thing is supposed to work.  You destroy the reapers by shooting the tube.  REALLY?  You somehow canm rewrite all life on the molecular level by throwing yourself into a pit of plasma.  REALLY?

At this point we aren't dealing with science fiction any more, but faith healing.

-Polaris

But you are confused Ian.  I was always talking about MY DECISION and MY DECISION includes Leviathan.  Go back to the post, I said MAYBE FOR YOU but not for ME.  Whether someone else has Leviathan or not is irrelevant because I was referring to my experience not theirs.  There is not a human on the planet that hasn't lied before.  Yet when they tell me a story in that moment I have to decide whether to believe it or not.  That is a personal decision.  If I can trust someone because they have lied once then I can't trust anything any human has said.  My parents lied to me when I was 3 and told me Santa Claus was real.  By your logic, must mean I can never believe a word they said since.  Like I said Ian, believe what you want but trying to tell another person what they should believe is where you have lost perspective due to your dislike of the game. 

From a metagame perspective, I saw the endings and I saw that the world does not end with Synthesis or Control.  So pre EC, I had more than enough info as well.  So again, if you want to bring meta in this, I saw clearly from the endings that either choose led ultimately to the same outcome.

I am not disputing it's your decision, but you really don't have reliable (or really any) data to base it off it.

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

We know it made money.  We don't know how much exactly or how close or far it was away from EA corporate targets.  Until you do, you are speculating just as much as anyone else.  DA2 made money, but it was a failure because it didn't hit targets.

As for whether it was MP or SP, I disagree.  It makes a huge difference, and I think it's no accident that the next instalment of the MEU is coming from Bioware Montreal who handles MP games.

According to the data available to me (at least when it comes to the endings), I am in the majority (or at the very least the plurality depending on how you define it).  Bioware is doing everything they can to deny this, but that doesn't make it so.  As for "making money", you are wrong.  It's about "meeting corporate targets" which is not quite the same thing.

Not only that but (as I am sure EA is aware) there is such a thing as being penny-wise and pound foolish.  IF success today costs you continual revenue streams tomorrow (because of lack of trust or other issues), then you wind up over the fiscal eight-ball.  Big Corporations do know this, yet they make this mistake constantly (and not just EA).  Why?  Becuase the corporate model emphasisizes the importance of short term return and tends to deemphasize long term success.

-Polaris

I never said I was not speculating.  I specifically said you guys need to prove it by not buying the next game.  Neither of us has definitive proof.  I accept that, you keep trying to pretend your data is the end all be all.  I tell you what, please provide your data and I will consider it.

And I don't disagree with your penny-wise and pound foolish concept.  Once again, PROVE IT by not buying the next game.  That is all I told the poster I responding too.  All your complainst about the game and about being the majority is 100% meaningless until you can prove it via your purchasing power.  That has been the case since capitalism first started.  Plenty of people for example think McDonaldn's and fast food in general is sh*t.  Guess what that sh*t sells and it will continue to be sold until such time that the consumer proves the complaints warrant a change.

[IanPolaris]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

It's not in-universe for all versions of Mass Effect/Shepards.

 Not all Shepards are exposed to the same information, period. The player is given quite a few points in the game where investigate options can be ignored, especially at certain plot critical moments in the series, ranging from the discussion with Vigil, Sovereign, etc.

If he's introducing Leviathan, then the dlc (and all knowledge gained from) are relevant for those particular Shepards. If playing Leviathan results in a more narratively consistent main plot, then from an entertainment pov you're better off giving it a run.

That's not universally true, though.  Not only that but the ending was made before the DLC was.

It was made after the ending snafu (so you are assuming the conclusion to prove the conclusion on a meta-level).

The meta level is irrelevant. In character information is all that matters in determining whether a character is justified in reaching a specific conclusion from a given set of knowledge.

If you want to argue that Leviathan is poor writing or that its necessity demonstrate that the original endings were poor writing, that's a separate argument altogether.

No, it's part of the same argument.  If you are depending on information that had to be written later to justify the writing of something that was written before, then you've already ceded the point.  It was bad writing.

If you do take Leviathan seriously, then you should be able to use/coop the Leviathan signals to have a decent shot at a conventional victory.  Basically the Levis introduce at least as many problems as they supposedly solve.
-Polaris

Different issue entirely to consider then the "it's just a dlc" argument, which is crap.

"Just DLC" is not 'crap' otherwise ex-post-facto reasoning would be good logic and it's not.  However, the problems with Leviathan go well beyond this.

-Polaris

[remydat]

drayfish wrote...

A business model that overlooks, and effectively alienates, the guaranteed, ongoing sales that a core fanbase privides is not a wise 'capitalist' move - if you really do want to strip out the 'artistic' component of the argument.

I agree 100% but until such time you prove that alienation has cost them money, it is simply a theory from a disgruntled consumer. Once again, prove it by not buying the next time. Not sure why this is a hard concept.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

I never said I was not speculating.  I specifically said you guys need to prove it by not buying the next game.  Neither of us has definitive proof.  I accept that, you keep trying to pretend your data is the end all be all.  I tell you what, please provide your data and I will consider it.

And I don't disagree with your penny-wise and pound foolish concept.  Once again, PROVE IT by not buying the next game.  That is all I told the poster I responding too.  All your complainst about the game and about being the majority is 100% meaningless until you can prove it via your purchasing power.  That has been the case since capitalism first started.  Plenty of people for example think McDonaldn's and fast food in general is sh*t.  Guess what that sh*t sells and it will continue to be sold until such time that the consumer proves the complaints warrant a change.

So you are saying that if something 'sells well" (whatever that means), then:

1.  I don't have a right to criticize it?

2.  It's automatically a good product?

Do you really want to go there?

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

I am not disputing it's your decision, but you really don't have reliable (or really any) data to base it off it.

-Polaris

Reliabiltiy is a matter of judgement.  Two people can hear the same story and arrive at different conclusions as to the reliability of the person telling it.  So again, you are trying to impose your view of reliability onto me.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

drayfish wrote...

A business model that overlooks, and effectively alienates, the guaranteed, ongoing sales that a core fanbase privides is not a wise 'capitalist' move - if you really do want to strip out the 'artistic' component of the argument.

I agree 100% but until such time you prove that alienation has cost them money, it is simply a theory from a disgruntled consumer. Once again, prove it by not buying the next time. Not sure why this is a hard concept.

I don't see how this is useful or constructive advice considering that none of us have had the ability to purchase (or not) the next Bioware product.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I am not disputing it's your decision, but you really don't have reliable (or really any) data to base it off it.

-Polaris

Reliabiltiy is a matter of judgement.  Two people can hear the same story and arrive at different conclusions as to the reliability of the person telling it.  So again, you are trying to impose your view of reliability onto me.

Not entirely.  You can depend on Facts which by definition two disparate observers can agree on.  When we depend on just "the facts", you don't have anything to base your decision on when it comes to the ending, and that's a problem.

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

So you are saying that if something 'sells well" (whatever that means), then:

1.  I don't have a right to criticize it?

2.  It's automatically a good product?

Do you really want to go there?

-Polaris

You have every right to criticize it and no it does not mean it is automatically good.  What it does mean is you can't claim you are the majority and you can't try and tell another person who liked it how they should feel about it.

I asked for your data that proves you are the majority.  I liked the game.  Only one of us is trying to deny the other their experience and it is not me.  I fully accept you didn't like it which is why I encourage you not to buy the next game to prove to Bioware you mean business.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

So you are saying that if something 'sells well" (whatever that means), then:

1.  I don't have a right to criticize it?

2.  It's automatically a good product?

Do you really want to go there?

-Polaris

You have every right to criticize it and no it does not mean it is automatically good.  What it does mean is you can't claim you are the majority and you can't try and tell another person who liked it how they should feel about it.

I asked for your data that proves you are the majority.  I liked the game.  Only one of us is trying to deny the other their experience and it is not me.  I fully accept you didn't like it which is why I encourage you not to buy the next game to prove to Bioware you mean business.

All the data that's been taken to this point by independant polling suggests that I am in fact in the majority.  Bioware denied this of course, but when asked to produce their own data saying otherwise, they refused.  That's their right and it's understandable, but the data to date (as flawed as it may be) tends to back me.

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't see how this is useful or constructive advice considering that none of us have had the ability to purchase (or not) the next Bioware product.

-Polaris

Bioware also has not had the ability to incorporate your feedback but has that stopped you from complaining?  You want to have it both ways.  If you can go on and on a year later about the game and your displeasure then I can say what I said.

IanPolaris wrote...

Not entirely.  You can depend on Facts which by definition two disparate observers can agree on.  When we depend on just "the facts", you don't have anything to base your decision on when it comes to the ending, and that's a problem.

-Polaris

The events of the previous cycles happened years ago.  There are no facts to present.  You only have eye witness testimony from the Catalyst and Leviathan.  The Crucible has never been built so there is no way to prove what it does without actually using it.  You can sit there and be paralyzed by the lack of facts or you can make a decision based on whether you believe the Catalyst or not.  

Modifié par remydat, 13 mai 2013 - 03:08 .

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't see how this is useful or constructive advice considering that none of us have had the ability to purchase (or not) the next Bioware product.

-Polaris

Bioware also has not had the ability to incorporate your feedback but has that stopped you from complaining?  You want to have it both ways.  If you can go on and on a year later about the game and your displeasure then I can say what I said.

The point of this topic is by their public commentary, Bioware doesn't seem to understand what they did wrong.  How can they fix the problem if they clearly don't seem to understand what the problem was?

IanPolaris wrote...

Not entirely.  You can depend on Facts which by definition two disparate observers can agree on.  When we depend on just "the facts", you don't have anything to base your decision on when it comes to the ending, and that's a problem.

-Polaris

The events of the previous cycles happened years ago.  There are no facts to present.  You only have eye witness testimony from the Catalyst and Leviathan.  The Crucible has never been built so there is no way to prove what it does without actually using it.  You can sit there and be paralyzed by the lack of facts or you can make a decision based on whether you believe the Catalyst or not.  

This is true, but you actually prove my point.  In a Socratic Exercise (which talky-techy sci-fi like Mass Effect is supposed to be), you are supposed to have enough FACTS and DATA to make reasonable ethical constructions and from those constructions draw moral decisions.  The problem with the ending you HAVE no such data or information.

Thus there is no moral component at all.  You may as well be tossing dice, and that's assuming the catalyst is being honest with you...something you have no reason to believe.

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

All the data that's been taken to this point by independant polling suggests that I am in fact in the majority.  Bioware denied this of course, but when asked to produce their own data saying otherwise, they refused.  That's their right and it's understandable, but the data to date (as flawed as it may be) tends to back me.

-Polaris

Or it suggests that haters are more vocal.  I am a stats guy and polls about likes and dislikes are always problematic because the haters tend to like to express their dislike for something more than the people that like it like to express themselves.  The data on sales backs up the fact the game is a success which sure it may be because MP.

However, we are both operating on flawed data which again goes back to my point.  Prove it by not buying ME4.  That is your only real viable solution.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

IanPolaris wrote...

It's not in-universe for all versions of Mass Effect/Shepards.

I'm not sure why this is a problem. As a player, I'm interested in producing a logically consistent narrative, as much as is possible. If Leviathan improves the player's ability to make a less assinine decision during the ending, it is in your/my interest to play through Leviathan, much like the investigate options which I technically have the option to skip throughout the series, but in many cases feel necessary to avoid leading to a disjointed narrative.  

That's not universally true, though.  Not only that but the ending was made before the DLC was.

See above. I think the ending is bad writing (even post dlc). But the universally true argument isn't an appealing one. If (overall) Leviathan improves the quality of the ending, and assuming you don't have any particular dislike of the dlc itself, why would you not complete it?

No, it's part of the same argument.  If you are depending on information that had to be written later to justify the writing of something that was written before, then you've already ceded the point.  It was bad writing.

Which doesn't matter from any sort of in character perspective. Shepard does not know that he's in a story. If ME3 without Leviathan leads to plot holes, it's bad writing. If Leviathan removes plot holes, then this new story we're experiencing is good writing (or at least, less bad writing) . Shepard is not employing a logical fallacy because he still witnesses the events of Leviathan, before he engages his conversation with the Catalyst. Far as I'm aware, your discussion which I observed dealt with whether or not Shepard is justified in trusting the Catalyst, an argument which can only be made based on in universe facts.

"Just DLC" is not 'crap' otherwise ex-post-facto reasoning would be good logic and it's not.  However, the problems with Leviathan go well beyond this.

-Polaris

See above. Shepard using information he learns in Leviathan to support his final choice is not a logical fallacy.

And as I said before, I am not saying that Leviathan solves the endings' problems. Merely that your labeling it as "dlc" is a weak point. If the dlc improves the writing, I don't see a problem with a player using that as a springboard to demonstrate why they feel their character is justified in his actions. You were the one who questioned remydat's basis for trusting the Catalyst. He has the right to use whatever information his character has access to in making his point. If all his characters happen to complete Leviathan, then it's relevant to all those characters.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 mai 2013 - 03:18 .

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

The point of this topic is by their public commentary, Bioware doesn't seem to understand what they did wrong.  How can they fix the problem if they clearly don't seem to understand what the problem was?

This is true, but you actually prove my point.  In a Socratic Exercise (which talky-techy sci-fi like Mass Effect is supposed to be), you are supposed to have enough FACTS and DATA to make reasonable ethical constructions and from those constructions draw moral decisions.  The problem with the ending you HAVE no such data or information.

Thus there is no moral component at all.  You may as well be tossing dice, and that's assuming the catalyst is being honest with you...something you have no reason to believe.

-Polaris

And my point is they will likely not understand it until sales force them to.

And you were never going to have such data.  You can't possibly prove motive without getting inside the head of someone.  All you can do is infer motive from their actions.  Or they can admit their motive to you in which case you have to choose whether to believe them or not.  

Are you proposing the game should have allowed us to hop in the head of the Catalyst to prove it's motives?  The catalyst told me its motives which only it can know and which cannot really be factually proven unless I have a 100% accurate lie detector.  That is no more a problem than in any story in which the motives of the individuals are at issue.

Modifié par remydat, 13 mai 2013 - 03:20 .

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

All the data that's been taken to this point by independant polling suggests that I am in fact in the majority.  Bioware denied this of course, but when asked to produce their own data saying otherwise, they refused.  That's their right and it's understandable, but the data to date (as flawed as it may be) tends to back me.

-Polaris

Or it suggests that haters are more vocal.  I am a stats guy and polls about likes and dislikes are always problematic because the haters tend to like to express their dislike for something more than the people that like it like to express themselves.  The data on sales backs up the fact the game is a success which sure it may be because MP.

However, we are both operating on flawed data which again goes back to my point.  Prove it by not buying ME4.  That is your only real viable solution.

Again, saying "if you don't like it don't buy it" doesn't strike me as being particularly constructive here.  As for calling ME3 a success, maybe, but neither one of us actually knows if it was.  I think it's certainly turned a profit, but we don't know what EA's target numbers or metrics were.  WIthout that information (which is certainly going to be an EA corporate secret...just as it would be for most corporations), we have no way to know.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

Are you proposing the game should have allowed us to hop in the head of the Catalyst to prove it's motives?

Nope.  I am proposing that they should have done what MEHEM did.  Cut out the starkid as an author's avatar entirely.  It doesn't work.

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  I am proposing that they should have done what MEHEM did.  Cut out the starkid as an author's avatar entirely.  It doesn't work.

-Polaris

And how would you propose Shep find out the motives of the Reapers?  MEHEM does nothing to explain the Reaper's motives which is fine if you don't care but I do.

[Megaton_Hope]

remydat wrote...

That is beside the point it matters.  You save the Queen and the bulk of Arlakh company dies.  If it is the fake Queen, she abandons the War Effort.  The still images at the end is just another potential impact. 

You kill Reapers in ME1 and you have to kill them in ME2.  That is a repetition of our task.

No, I kill one Reaper in ME1, knowing that others remain because he has told me so. I also shoot people in ME1, ME2 and ME3 without destroying the human race.

The Rachni, on the other hand, were declared extinct in 300 CE, and no living specimen has been encountered in 1,883 years. The Queen I encounter on Noveria has been revived from an exceedingly rare find, floating derelict in space. According to the best information available, there are no other Queens. Not unlike in the sequel novels to Ender's Game, the survival of this queen is necessary to the perpetuation of the species.

Hence, if I kill it, that extinguishes the Rachni. If I release it, the Rachni experience a resurgence. That is what the gravity and import of that decision derives from. If I release it and the Rachni die of the common cold, it was not important that I released the last Rachni Queen known to exist over thousands of years. If I destroy it and the Rachni come back anyway, it was not important that I destroyed the last Rachni Queen known to exist for thousands of years.

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  I am proposing that they should have done what MEHEM did.  Cut out the starkid as an author's avatar entirely.  It doesn't work.

-Polaris

And how would you propose Shep find out the motives of the Reapers?  MEHEM does nothing to explain the Reaper's motives which is fine if you don't care but I do.

Who cares what the Reaper's motive's are?  "You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

That's all we really have to know.  It's them or us.  It's just like DAO.  We really don't need to know the motivations of the Archdemon to know we have to stop it.

-Polaris

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

Again, saying "if you don't like it don't buy it" doesn't strike me as being particularly constructive here.  As for calling ME3 a success, maybe, but neither one of us actually knows if it was.  I think it's certainly turned a profit, but we don't know what EA's target numbers or metrics were.  WIthout that information (which is certainly going to be an EA corporate secret...just as it would be for most corporations), we have no way to know.

-Polaris

And complaining about a game a year later isn't particularly constructive either so I don't see your point.  If you want your voice to be heard by Bioware via your complaints then I am equally allowed to have Bioware hear my voice telling you I disagree with your complaints.  Otherwise, how is Bioware suppose to know there are people out there who actually like the game and think the criticism of it has gone way overboard?

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

Who cares what the Reaper's motive's are?  "You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

That's all we really have to know.  It's them or us.  It's just like DAO.  We really don't need to know the motivations of the Archdemon to know we have to stop it.

-Polaris

I just told you I do.  Am I not suppose to care just because you don't?

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Again, saying "if you don't like it don't buy it" doesn't strike me as being particularly constructive here.  As for calling ME3 a success, maybe, but neither one of us actually knows if it was.  I think it's certainly turned a profit, but we don't know what EA's target numbers or metrics were.  WIthout that information (which is certainly going to be an EA corporate secret...just as it would be for most corporations), we have no way to know.

-Polaris

And complaining about a game a year later isn't particularly constructive either so I don't see your point.  If you want your voice to be heard by Bioware via your complaints then I am equally allowed to have Bioware hear my voice telling you I disagree with your complaints.  Otherwise, how is Bioware suppose to know there are people out there who actually like the game and think the criticism of it has gone way overboard?

I don't see anyone stopping you....

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Who cares what the Reaper's motive's are?  "You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

That's all we really have to know.  It's them or us.  It's just like DAO.  We really don't need to know the motivations of the Archdemon to know we have to stop it.

-Polaris

I just told you I do.  Am I not suppose to care just because you don't?

Deal with it.  In ME1, the Reapers were explicitly introduced as Space Cthulus.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  In fact when you speak with Vigil at the end of ME1, he reinforces this when you ask why the Reapers are doing this, by saying exactly this:  "In the end does it matter?  What matters is that they have to be stopped."

Modifié par IanPolaris, 13 mai 2013 - 03:28 .