255 réponses à ce sujet

[Modius Prime]

 I know. What I'm talking about is probably old, but I want your opinions, anyways. I've been reading articles from critics (the critics that gave the game 90%+ O.o) and most, if not all, of them believe that BioWare is setting a bad precedent where public opinion could change the artistic integrity of developers and their games. They seem to believe that only a vocal minority (a minority that apparently was able to change the ending of a game O.o) out of the millions of people that bought Mass Effect actually complained about the ending, but I think the problem is that they lacked the emotional bonds that fans, like me, have made with Shepard and his/her crew. Personally, I don't really agree with the whole artistic integrity thing: if an autoshop had an artist design a car and it was missing certain safety features, then couldn't said artist technically pull the same thing that BioWare did with the whole ending debacle? I mean, it's art, right? Also, if any game set a precedent it was probably Fallout 3 which came out years before Mass Effect 3 and outright changed the ending through DLC and did not pull the artistic integrity card; it was entirely new and it added a lot of content into the game, so why didn't BioWare do the same? Instead of clarifying certain elements, they could have used the months of time that they had in order to revolutionize their game and actually make their video game ending logical; however, they did not and stood firm with their artistic integrity and just added slides with an extra scene with your LI putting/refusing to put your name on the KIA wall. I am, in no way, not angry with BioWare because it showed that they actually cared for the fans by releasing the EC (even though I did not like it) and the Citadel DLC. Do you think what BioWare did was a mistake and will it set a bad precedent, or do you think it was actually beneficial to change it? 

I should go. 

Modifié par Modius Prime, 17 mai 2013 - 02:35 .

[Lt Davo]

The bad precedent was the original ending.

[xlegionx]

Lt Davo wrote...

The bad precedent was the original ending.

Well, not really a precedent, but it did show that rushing games can and often do lead to its undoing

EDIT: To the OP, the reason that Bioware felt validated is that there was some philosophical mumbo-jumbo that didn't pan out. Fallout's problem was purely logical, seeing as you could have companions who are immune/highly resistant to radiation who refused to go into the irradiated control room.

Bioware can at least claim there is some artistic image. But I disagree with this, as when you sell a game to people telling them their choices will matter, then rush the ending into becoming a subpar Deus Ex rip-off leaving the fans with a pointless A/B/C choice that you explicitly promised wouldn't be what would happen, you can no longer hide behind artistic integrity 

Modifié par xlegionx, 16 mai 2013 - 10:14 .

[KingZayd]

Yes it set a bad precedent:
It made a terrible ending more stupid.

[IanPolaris]

Not a precedent at all. The people you are reading are posterior-bent because the "unwashed masses" didn't appreciate their "art". In fact the negative reactions and pretentiousness is actually far greater from the so-called "main stream" critics than from bioware itself.

All this neglects the fact that endings (and even entire sections) of CRPGs have been redone in the face of player/reader criticism before, and it will no doubt happen again (and it's not restricted to CRPGs either). Sherlock Holmes was brought back because of fan outcry for example.

-Polaris

[DarkNova50]

The original ending was 'boot my console across the room' bad. With the Extended Cut DLC, I find it to be more 'I'm going to roll my eyes at how stupid this whole thing is' bad.

So I think that the EC was the right call to make. I prefer my endings to be so bad they're almost kind of funny, as opposed to so horrifically bad I want to swallow my own tongue to keep the bile down.

[jstme]

Fallout 3 came prior to ME3.
So it is not a precedent. Nor is it a bad thing, listening to consumer complains and going toward them is a positive thing ,but video game publishers and review sites do not want consumers to have that kind of power.

[CrutchCricket]

Step 1: Release a half-ass **** ending
Step 2: Stoke the rage until it starts making the news (any publicity is good publicity)
Step 3: Refuse to talk about it during the ****storm except at the peak when you announce an incoming fix in such a way as to divide the fanbase and have them turn on each other
Step 4: Release the other half-assed part of the ending as a DLC barely appealing to the lowest common denominator of complaints. Instantly gain rep as a company who "listens" and a sizeable following of drones. Bonus ability to call holdouts "entitled" unlocked.
Step 5: ...?
Step 6: Profit.

Yeah I'd say the precedent isn't too favorable.

[TheProtheans]

Modius Prime wrote...

I think the problem is that they lacked the emotional bonds that fans, like me, have made with Shepard and his/her crew.

Do tell me more about this bond that I lack.

[KaiserShep]

Makes me glad I only started playing post-EC. I never had to feel its fiery sting.

[PsyrenY]

KingZayd wrote...

Yes it set a bad precedent:
It made a terrible ending more stupid.

And the people loved it!
QQ moar.

[GreyLycanTrope]

While controversial in it's not much of a precedent. This isn't the first time in history of film, literature or gaming that an ending has been altered in an attempt to please the audience.

Personally I don't find the idea of altering ones work offensive if mistakes have indeed been made when creating it, as was the case here. I mean Uwe Boll has every right to say he likes his films just the way they are, doesn't mean they're particularly good work and there isn't room for improvement.

[Eryri]

No, I don't think the EC set any sort of precedent. Those gaming journalists who got on their high horse about it, were indulging in a hysterical slippery-slope argument, in my opinion. No one held a gun to Bioware's head to force them to make the EC. They did it because it was in their interests to do so.

I remember that supercilious twerp Colin Moriarty, bleating that in the future, some hypothetical smaller game company might feel "pressured" to quiesce to similar demands if Bioware set an example.

Well, firstly, heaven forfend that such a hypothetical company might feel the need to produce a game that people might actually like. Secondly, a small company with a lower profile would be unlikely to attract this sort of media attention for one of its games. Thirdly, even if such a media circus did surround one of their releases, they would still not be legally forced to change their game due the precedent set by the EC. It might make their fans more confident in their demands, but if these hypothetical developers are such delicate shrinking violets as to be unable to withstand a bit of criticism, then perhaps they are in the wrong line of work.

I suspect this had more than a little to do with the insecurities of certain game journalists. They want to be thought of as serious "art critics", perhaps so that at family gatherings they no longer have to fend off questions from their parents about whether they will ever stop wasting their lives playing games and get proper jobs. Consequently they felt duty bound to get on their soap boxes about "artistic integrity".

I suppose the only negative precedent the EC set, was that making a pretty slide show is apparently enough to mollify your fans, even if you end up introducing even more plot holes - the ludicrous Normandy Pickup being a shining example of excavating one plot crater to backfil another.

Modifié par Eryri, 16 mai 2013 - 10:34 .

[DarkNova50]

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Yes it set a bad precedent:
It made a terrible ending more stupid.

And the people loved it!
QQ moar.

Love is a pretty strong word. I think there were people who liked it, some who tolerated it, and others who still despise the whole mess.

[jstme]

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Yes it set a bad precedent:
It made a terrible ending more stupid.

And the people loved it!
QQ moar.

Source for that public love for EC info? 

[TheProtheans]

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Yes it set a bad precedent:
It made a terrible ending more stupid.

And the people loved it!
QQ moar.

And people love Twilight, some people just love bad stuff.

[xlegionx]

KaiserShep wrote...

Makes me glad I only started playing post-EC. I never had to feel its fiery sting.

I am jealous of you. Playing on without spoilers, I was defiant against all the claims that the ending was terrible "They're just nitpicking and whining," I said. When I started talking to StarBrat, I was somewhat confused. And by the time the credits rolled, I was legitmately angry. I vented to a friend for the entire duration of the credits, only to find the Stargazer scene and the "Buy DLC" message.

Anyway, I digress. TL;DR: F- you in a kind way for being so lucky 

[AresKeith]

jstme wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Yes it set a bad precedent:
It made a terrible ending more stupid.

And the people loved it!
QQ moar.

Source for that public love for EC info? 

He'll probably pull up the facebook poll about EC expectations

[JamesFaith]

Fallout 3 is bad example. It was change of undeniable oversight and it was used for selling another DLC.

And unlike of ME3 there was widespread consensus between fans what was wrong and how to fix it. Opponents of ME3 endings are able to agree only on its bad quality, but their demands on their "fixing" are widely different and often contradictory - in such situation would be any "alternative ending" too risky and surely raise another round of demand from those, whose problems weren't solved.

[TheProtheans]

xlegionx wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Makes me glad I only started playing post-EC. I never had to feel its fiery sting.

I am jealous of you. Playing on without spoilers, I was defiant against all the claims that the ending was terrible "They're just nitpicking and whining," I said. When I started talking to StarBrat, I was somewhat confused. And by the time the credits rolled, I was legitmately angry. I vented to a friend for the entire duration of the credits, only to find the Stargazer scene and the "Buy DLC" message.

Anyway, I digress. TL;DR: F- you in a kind way for being so lucky 

You  make it sound as if it was life changing and you're broken.
Do you like the endings now? 
Do you think Mass effect got a satisfying ending that suited the trilogy?

[KingZayd]

AresKeith wrote...

jstme wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Yes it set a bad precedent:
It made a terrible ending more stupid.

And the people loved it!
QQ moar.

Source for that public love for EC info? 

He'll probably pull up the facebook poll about EC expectations

Which wouldn't have anything to do with the OP's question.

[dreamgazer]

TheProtheans wrote...

And people love Twilight, some people just love bad stuff.

Huh.  Then maybe Mass Effect was bad from the beginning, and the entire fanbase is equivalent to Twilight fans.

[Bizinha]

I dont know... the ending still bad...

[xlegionx]

TheProtheans wrote...

xlegionx wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Makes me glad I only started playing post-EC. I never had to feel its fiery sting.

I am jealous of you. Playing on without spoilers, I was defiant against all the claims that the ending was terrible "They're just nitpicking and whining," I said. When I started talking to StarBrat, I was somewhat confused. And by the time the credits rolled, I was legitmately angry. I vented to a friend for the entire duration of the credits, only to find the Stargazer scene and the "Buy DLC" message.

Anyway, I digress. TL;DR: F- you in a kind way for being so lucky 

You  make it sound as if it was life changing and you're broken.
Do you like the endings now? 
Do you think Mass effect got a satisfying ending that suited the trilogy?

I wasn't broken, god no. I'm not that affected by a video game. But when I purchase a product and it comes nowhere near its advertised expectations, I have a right to be angry

I like the endings more now Post-EC, but they still are a shadow of what they could have been had EA not rushed it out the door. I do not find it a suitable ending for the ME trilogy.

[Aaleel]

No I don't think so. It's not like they removed the Catalyst and changed the entire ending. That would have set a bad precedent.

But some things needed explaining because they didn't make a lick of sense.

If anything hopefully this will make game designers think twice before they rush a product out the door.