Aller au contenu

Photo

Did the release of the Extended Cut set a bad precedent for the video game industry?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
255 réponses à ce sujet

#126
Archonsg

Archonsg
  • Members
  • 3 560 messages

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

And charging for a new ending to a heavily narrative-driven game, not a sandbox, would be a good thing?


No, a good thing would have been producing an acceptable ending the first time around, rather than ramming...this...down our throats.

Charging for a new ending would have been...less bad...than producing a free DLC that does little but say "You just don't get it.  Let me explain louder and slower."


QFT.

It has to be noted that, if you want to take that route, your (Bioware's) "louder and slower" explanation better be water tight and be able to stand up to logic hammer blows.
otherwise, you (Bioware) not only sound insincere, you come off as a stupid idiot.
Which was what happened.

The fact that Casey Hudson and Mac Walters still hedge what they say with veiled suggestions of player stupidity or lack of understanding, and not admiting that the ending was genuinely bad, just highlights the kind of precedence being set here. 

Modifié par Archonsg, 17 mai 2013 - 02:58 .


#127
Aravius

Aravius
  • Members
  • 791 messages
All it did was give me hope, for a short while, that Bioware could fix the mess they created. All they ended up doing was crushing me more. They should have just stood by their crappy ending, and allowed us, as fans, to slip away, and never buy their products again.

#128
dreamgazer

dreamgazer
  • Members
  • 15 743 messages
Man, you guys have made an art out of putting words in BioWare's mouth.

#129
FlamingBoy

FlamingBoy
  • Members
  • 3 064 messages

Aravius wrote...

All it did was give me hope, for a short while, that Bioware could fix the mess they created. All they ended up doing was crushing me more. They should have just stood by their crappy ending, and allowed us, as fans, to slip away, and never buy their products again.


Honestly mate, in terms of "sticking with their ending", the media storm was so intense that it only let off when Muyzka made the announcement of the extendend cut. Gamers are often criticised for not sticking with controversies...

This was not the case for the me3 controversy, it just would not let up, I can say quite frankly I have never (and probably never will again) seen anything quite like it.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 17 mai 2013 - 03:07 .


#130
Archonsg

Archonsg
  • Members
  • 3 560 messages
@Flamingboy

Part of the reason for that I am pretty sure is because for most who felt that way felt a good five years of experience and investment was "rewarded" with a subpar product.

/shrugs

It could have easily been the other way around, with fans cementing the ME Series as this generation's Baldur's Gate series.

#131
Jafroboy

Jafroboy
  • Members
  • 566 messages

13Dannyboy13 wrote...

Jafroboy wrote...

"The real definition of a loyal fan is someone who keeps supporting Bioware and buying their stuff no matter what happens. "

Lol, thats the definition of an idiot!

Yeah, that's hilarious. :lol: 
Sadly, since EA bough Bioware, I've gone from preordering games months in advance, to waiting until they come out and just renting them first. The only reason I think the EC came out was to appease some fans so they'd keep spending money on dlc, just adding a few slides does nothing to fix the broken ending. I don't think it did anything to set any precedent, since it really didn't do anything to fix the problem. 


I wouldnt say thats sad. I've always thought people who pre-order without knowing if the game is gonna be good must be... unrealistically optimistic at best, and renting is always a nice cheap way to enjoy a game.

#132
FlamingBoy

FlamingBoy
  • Members
  • 3 064 messages

Archonsg wrote...

@Flamingboy

Part of the reason for that I am pretty sure is because for most who felt that way felt a good five years of experience and investment was "rewarded" with a subpar product.

/shrugs

It could have easily been the other way around, with fans cementing the ME Series as this generation's Baldur's Gate series.


I have to agree, the ending (and the game) was the equivelent (regardless of intentions) of a betrayal of the gravest kind. This would be a prime factor. Me2 and me 1 set the stage for something fantastic, something one of a kind, instead it was somthing considerably less.

But to be fair a controversy that was that big, its hard to pin point it to any particular issue. For example, the integrity of the reviewers , the integrity of the developers, and the extremely clever ingenuity of fans (I am refering the childs play donation and the cupcakes), And the extrodinary inability of both biowares and ea PR department to both contain and spin the story (for the example the extremely damaging "entitled" argument),

all these kept the controversy alive, with damage which is quite possibly irreversible.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 17 mai 2013 - 03:29 .


#133
drayfish

drayfish
  • Members
  • 1 211 messages

magnetite wrote...

Finally, I think demanding game developers to change their ending of their game is wrong. In fact, I think demanding any company to change their product just because you're not happy with it is wrong. The way that people should have gone about is by asking and leaving personal reviews and advice on forums like this one. Asking is a lot nicer than demanding and you're more likely to get what you want.


I don't know. Some people think that because they paid $60 means that they have the right to be satisfied. Or that since they spent 200+ hours playing a game series, that it automatically entitles them to anything they want.

The real definition of a loyal fan is someone who keeps supporting Bioware and buying their stuff no matter what happens. These people who were handed an Extended Cut made by Bioware themselves specifically for them to provide a little more closure and a few less plot holes (perceived plot holes not actual plot holes). The stuff people are complaining about is not a plot hole), and then turning around and saying stuff like "not good enough" "I need more closure, or less plot holes" aren't loyal fans in the slightest.

One of the reasons this place was stated to be increasingly toxic by someone who works for them. They also went on to say that the BSN is not the only place they get their feedback from. They have met plenty of people who hold Mass Effect 3 and it's ending in high praise, instead of people around here who continue to be bitter about the thing.

At this point, those people are disgruntled customers who have nothing better to do than to spend day in and day out talking about how much they were disappointed. At the end of the day, it's just a game. There are more important things in life to worry about.


You know what, magnetite, I think I agree with you.

I agree that you've been (as you are clearly, self-righteously hinting throughout this thread) a loyal fan.  You've praised Bioware repeatedly; you continue to defend them by re-hashing all the familiar 'fans-are-whiners' catch-cries and have been helpfully citing many of the articles that blighted the developer/audience conversation since the game first rolled out; and you have dismissed the rights of fans who are apparently 'too lazy to seek out the truth', and who consequentially complain about what they don't understand.

You are a 'true', loyal fan.

So don;t be shy.  Go ahead and say the words.

Please.  Don't just dance around being smug and implying that everyone is too stupid to glean the genius.  Say what it is that people have missed.  Share the truth of the narrative.

Say the words 'Indoctrination Theory'.

Help everyone to reconnect with this game that they have clearly, sadly misunderstood.  Allow them to share the complexity and depth that you have had the wisdom to perceive.




...Or are you not allowed to?

Has Bioware perhaps actively sought to silence this interpretation?  Your interpretation?  Banished it from the forums?  Have they actively pursued and locked down any discussion of this analysis for several months now, demanding that those who subscribe to it sequester themselves away in the non-public 'groups' section of the forum?

That seems a little weird, doesn't it?  After all - you are a loyal fan.  You have a valid interpretation of the game, don't you?  And this is their genius that you are defending.

This is the 'truth' of the narrative that people like myself have ignorantly misunderstood.  Heck, I thought the end of the game was a nonsense, intolerant, deus ex machina ass-pull.  What a jerk I am.  ...And yet I've never been ordered to hide my interpretation away from the public forum.

Hm.  That's weird, isn't it?  I can call it lazy, incompetent, artless, unwittingly racist trash - and I'm allowed to speak the words.  But you try to talk about the primary weapon of the Reaper forces - their capacity to bend the mind and thoughts of their enemies - and the discussion will get locked down by moderators.

Real weird.

But no, I'm sure your right.  As a 'loyal' fan, who has understood the 'true' reading of the game's narrative (after all, you've read all of the codex entries), it makes sense that you should be unable to voice your opinion of a game that you love.

That must mean that you are right.  It must mean that Bioware has treated its fans fairly and openly.  And it must definitely mean that those who do not subscribe to IT are wrong, and deserve your pity and contempt.

So thank you.

#134
drayfish

drayfish
  • Members
  • 1 211 messages
As for the question that began this thread, I think the only 'bad precedent' set in this whole debacle hangs on the entitlement and arrogance of the game 'journalists' who, in a knee-jerk reactionary attack, tried to wall themselves off from valid criticism by condemning an audeince that had every right to voice their opinion.  Feeling exposed for having such a wildly divergent opinion between their glowing praise of the game, and the widespread condemnation of players, they decided to go on the offensive, and insulting the audience of a text for being unwilling to just blindly accept their opinion, dressing it up under the guise of protecting Bioware's 'artistic integrity'.

Infantile, self-righteous zealots like Colin Moriarty berated audiences for having the audacity to have an opinion, and declared that in a capitalist world they should only be able to 'vote with their wallet'. The hypocrisy of his claiming to still personally have the right to have an opinion, the truth that he had not actually even paid for the game, and the reality that many players had bought the game on his recommendation, escaped (and continues to escape) him utterly.

Likewise publications such as Game Informer and IGN belittled the fan outcry, aping surprise that anyone might question the disparity in their review scores and gushing, preview advertising, with the realities of the product delivered. They claimed that fans were being unreasonable, when in many cases it was merely the direct promises that Bioware had made - and that these very games publications had gleefully published - that were being quoted back at them.

Ultimately, the facts are these:

There is a precedent for movies being changed due to public opinion or the will of the creator. There is precedent for writers changing their fictions at the behest of their readers, or their own desire. Television has responded to such criticism. Painters. Musicians. Graphic novelists. With the preponderance of DLC and re-releases one can't even pretend that it was a new thing for the videogame industry.

The only precedent set by the ME3 is that perhaps in future fans will not be so quick to blindly trust the pre-release advertorial spin that games 'journalists' and developers repeatedly engage in, and will be more mindful of the empty promises of companies who claim to value their audience's participation in the creative process, and vow to incorporate their feedback into the final product.

As ME3 proved, the game is ultimately the expression of its creators, and the audience is just a consumer who needs to steel themselves to not fall prey to empty hype.

Modifié par drayfish, 17 mai 2013 - 04:06 .


#135
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
It was never about money.

It was never about advertising, either, although there's no doubt some of the developers said some incredibly foolish things pre-release.

No, the real promises - the important promises - were made by the story itself. A story is a collection of implicit promises from the storyteller to the audience in and of itself. And those are the promises that players feel betrayed by.

Modifié par David7204, 17 mai 2013 - 04:16 .


#136
Archonsg

Archonsg
  • Members
  • 3 560 messages

David7204 wrote...

It was never about money.

It was never about advertising, either, although there's no doubt some of the developers said some incredibly foolish things pre-release.

No, the real promises - the important promises - were made by the story itself. A story is a collection of implicit promises from the storyteller to the audience in and of itself. And those are the promises that players feel betrayed by.


Good point.

#137
Archonsg

Archonsg
  • Members
  • 3 560 messages
@drayfish

Isn't what the the gaming rags done a reflection of the methods of what is practiced in politics these days?

Can't refute the truth so smear the person mouthing it?
It's easier is it not, to make another person look bad and cloud the issue rather than to admit that you were wrong, compromised or didn't really exercise due process that would have defended your credibility?

I posted something similar on another thread, describing the "old school" gaming reviews that I loved from a now defunct magazine, probably because they were too honest.

Part of the problem also lies with "us".
"Us" being gamers who do not really care *why*a game is rated as "good" as long as its rated a nine or better. Because, hey, "I" bought a 10/10 game." regardless of merit.

Modifié par Archonsg, 17 mai 2013 - 05:46 .


#138
Han Shot First

Han Shot First
  • Members
  • 21 187 messages
Arthur Conan Doyle retconned the death of Sherlock Holmes in 1903, after fans of Holmes went apesh-t when Doyle killed him off in The Final Problem.

Not only did Bioware not set a precedent in altering a work of fiction after fan backlash, but they missed setting a precedent by at least 110 years.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 17 mai 2013 - 06:20 .


#139
Brovikk Rasputin

Brovikk Rasputin
  • Members
  • 3 825 messages
As much as I appreciate it, yes.

#140
HiddenInWar

HiddenInWar
  • Members
  • 3 134 messages
I don't think so.

If there is general fan outcry and devs want to change that (enter EC), and the feedback was perceived as satisfactory, was anything really lost in that attempt at fixing it?

#141
Guest_tickle267_*

Guest_tickle267_*
  • Guests
extended cut.

#142
Ticonderoga117

Ticonderoga117
  • Members
  • 6 751 messages
The bad precedent set by ME3 was "Bad writing is ok as long as you are making an attempt at symbolism". That's it. Fallout 3 did this "new ending" thing, and they fixed the facepalm moments and then added more great content!

#143
Jafroboy

Jafroboy
  • Members
  • 566 messages

tickle267 wrote...

extended cut.


Ahehehe

#144
Examurai

Examurai
  • Members
  • 415 messages

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

The bad precedent set by ME3 was "Bad writing is ok as long as you are making an attempt at symbolism". That's it. Fallout 3 did this "new ending" thing, and they fixed the facepalm moments and then added more great content!


That's the difference between a paid DLC and free one.

#145
Ticonderoga117

Ticonderoga117
  • Members
  • 6 751 messages

Examurai1 wrote...

That's the difference between a paid DLC and free one.


What? I have to pay for common sense? Also, BioWare could've charged for it. The precedent was there.

#146
JamesFaith

JamesFaith
  • Members
  • 2 301 messages

Han Shot First wrote...

Arthur Conan Doyle retconned the death of Sherlock Holmes in 1903, after fans of Holmes went apesh-t when Doyle killed him off in The Final Problem.

Not only did Bioware not set a precedent in altering a work of fiction after fan backlash, but they missed setting a precedent by at least 110 years.


It is always nice when people used this argument about old man who was tired by EIGHT years long harrasments by fanatics who visiting him in his house, stopping him on street and sending him a death threats and was forced to return to character he hates.

And there wasn't any alternation - he never change single world in The final problem.
Same it wasn't retcon - Holmes's dead was only suggested, but not described. Watson only supposed it because Holmes wrote him a letter about his preparation to fight with Moriarty and there was no footprints returning from cliff. 

#147
Erez Kristal

Erez Kristal
  • Members
  • 1 656 messages

Robosexual wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Tron Mega wrote...

i miss the days when mass effect was good.


There are conflicting reports on where that begins and ends.

I guess we can all agree that the one with the asari-cloning plant and the last-minute, plot-resolving prototype relay is the "good one", right?


Don't forget the info dump Deus Ex Machina, Vigil.


It all depends on the affect of the deus ex and what part you play in it. if you just watch it from the side helpless to do anything about it. then it doesnt feel like you earned it. thus bad ending. and a small relay or a cloning plant is not as big thing as rewriting all organics in the galaxy.

#148
wright1978

wright1978
  • Members
  • 8 116 messages

Lt Davo wrote...

The bad precedent was the original ending.


QFT

#149
Daniel_N7

Daniel_N7
  • Members
  • 435 messages

Did the release of the Extended Cut set a bad precedent for the video game industry?

No. It turned a bad ending to a good gaming trilogy into something more satisfying as long as you only use the right side of your brain.

And please, let's not go into the "artistic integrity" debate all over again...

#150
SpamBot2000

SpamBot2000
  • Members
  • 4 463 messages
The Extended Cut set a bad precedent of game companies ignoring the substance of criticism and spending their fixing resources on pointless fluff.