865 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

CrutchCricket wrote...
The precendent of paid DLC would be the same, except there'd be even more of an incentive for other to pull this **** because they could also make some money off it (or at least not incurr the loss the cost of the "fix" DLC would bring). The way it'd be worse for gamers is obvious.

But they would have made money off of DLC anyway. You are saying that pissing off your fanbase and then releasing ending DLC to "fix it" and make money is better than just doing normal DLC and making money without all the controversy? No, I'm sorry, I don't buy that.

As for internet discussions, what is it pro-enders always go on about, "that's only a vocal minority"? Yeah, that.

Too many people did. And your rep isn't based on what you fixed but what people perceive you fixed and the fact that they perceive an effort at all. Being seen as acknowledging and fixing your mistake can raise you higher than not having made the mistake at all. People don't notice when everything goes according to plan.

I don't think any company is going to risk the reputation of making bad games(which is what it turned into, as evidenced by the ratings bombings on Amazon and MC) in order to gain a reputation of fixing their mistake.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 24 juin 2013 - 06:13 .

[FlamingBoy]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...

I lost pretty much all hope when they announced the EC with their bullet points Q&A talking about clarification, closure and artistic vision. This was confirmed after the EC came out and they locked 3DandBeyond’s “One Last Plea” thread.

Yeah that was a dark day.  There were a lot of cogent reasons why the ending didn't work and should be changed.  It even stayed fairly civil. 

Alas, what we think truly didn't matter.

How long did that thread go on? Were the same things being repeated over and over? 

Most debates repeat the same thing over and over

anywhom the debate went for 258 pages
http://social.biowar.../index/13909825
for anyone interested.

[mopotter]

Wolfva2 wrote...

Lessee...when did I realize there was no hope of redeeming the ending? Oh, I'd say it was back in the early 70s, when I was a wee child and I realized that the AUTHORS have NO FREAKING OBLIGATION to write what *I* want them to. That the endings THEY chose was up to them. That I, as an end user, could enjoy it, could hate it. That it was MY decision whether or not to buy the product, or any future products, but that it would be petulant and childish to demand they re-write everything just to make ME happy.
 

Ahh, but back in the 60's after the book by an author I enjoyed disappointed me, I learned to check the ending before buying the book.  Can't do that with a video game if you pre-order it.  And after KOTOR I always pre-ordered BioWare games because I liked how they gave me more than one ending experience.  Didn't happen in my last pre-order ME3.  

[CronoDragoon]

dreamgazer wrote...

How long did that thread go on? Were the same things being repeated over and over? 

Yes and no. Things were being repeated over and over but there were many well-thought out posts.

The thread was probably closed because 3D made a new topic that said "Hope dead" or "Plea denied" or whatever that essentially admitted that nothing new would get done for the endings, which invalidated the premise for the thread.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 24 juin 2013 - 06:16 .

[o Ventus]

Eterna5 wrote...

I find it weird how the Last of us has an ending that is arguably worse than ME3's and yet people herald it as the best game of this generation.

Guess Bioware fans are just weird. 

Consideringthat a game and an ending are 2 separate entities...

[David7204]

Worse as in grim, or worse as in worse?

[Iakus]

mopotter wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Lessee...when did I realize there was no hope of redeeming the ending? Oh, I'd say it was back in the early 70s, when I was a wee child and I realized that the AUTHORS have NO FREAKING OBLIGATION to write what *I* want them to. That the endings THEY chose was up to them. That I, as an end user, could enjoy it, could hate it. That it was MY decision whether or not to buy the product, or any future products, but that it would be petulant and childish to demand they re-write everything just to make ME happy.
 

Ahh, but back in the 60's after the book by an author I enjoyed disappointed me, I learned to check the ending before buying the book.  Can't do that with a video game if you pre-order it.  And after KOTOR I always pre-ordered BioWare games because I liked how they gave me more than one ending experience.  Didn't happen in my last pre-order ME3.  

Not to mention what we were told was "You're choices drive the story!" " Unique experiences!" "No canon" "It's up to you how things turn out!"

When what they meant was "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it"

[dreamgazer]

FlamingBoy wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...

I lost pretty much all hope when they announced the EC with their bullet points Q&A talking about clarification, closure and artistic vision. This was confirmed after the EC came out and they locked 3DandBeyond’s “One Last Plea” thread.

Yeah that was a dark day.  There were a lot of cogent reasons why the ending didn't work and should be changed.  It even stayed fairly civil. 

Alas, what we think truly didn't matter.

How long did that thread go on? Were the same things being repeated over and over? 

Most debates repeat the same thing over and over

anywhom the debate went for 258 pages
http://social.biowar.../index/13909825
for anyone interested.

I remember reading through the thread when it was in its infancy, but it seems like a different, stagnant discussion in the last ten or so pages.  (shrug)

[mopotter]

iakus wrote...

mopotter wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Lessee...when did I realize there was no hope of redeeming the ending? Oh, I'd say it was back in the early 70s, when I was a wee child and I realized that the AUTHORS have NO FREAKING OBLIGATION to write what *I* want them to. That the endings THEY chose was up to them. That I, as an end user, could enjoy it, could hate it. That it was MY decision whether or not to buy the product, or any future products, but that it would be petulant and childish to demand they re-write everything just to make ME happy.
 

Ahh, but back in the 60's after the book by an author I enjoyed disappointed me, I learned to check the ending before buying the book.  Can't do that with a video game if you pre-order it.  And after KOTOR I always pre-ordered BioWare games because I liked how they gave me more than one ending experience.  Didn't happen in my last pre-order ME3.  

Not to mention what we were told was "You're choices drive the story!" " Unique experiences!" "No canon" "It's up to you how things turn out!"

When what they meant was "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it"

Totally!  

It really should have been 3 separate games with separate main characters.  I would not have had so much invested in the story and the endings wouldn't have upset me nearly as much.  

[FlamingBoy]

iakus wrote...

mopotter wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

Lessee...when did I realize there was no hope of redeeming the ending? Oh, I'd say it was back in the early 70s, when I was a wee child and I realized that the AUTHORS have NO FREAKING OBLIGATION to write what *I* want them to. That the endings THEY chose was up to them. That I, as an end user, could enjoy it, could hate it. That it was MY decision whether or not to buy the product, or any future products, but that it would be petulant and childish to demand they re-write everything just to make ME happy.
 

Ahh, but back in the 60's after the book by an author I enjoyed disappointed me, I learned to check the ending before buying the book.  Can't do that with a video game if you pre-order it.  And after KOTOR I always pre-ordered BioWare games because I liked how they gave me more than one ending experience.  Didn't happen in my last pre-order ME3.  

Not to mention what we were told was "You're choices drive the story!" " Unique experiences!" "No canon" "It's up to you how things turn out!"

When what they meant was "You exist because we allow it, and will end because we demand it"

There was an element in of deception in me3 marketing which fueled the outrage.

[CronoDragoon]

mopotter wrote...
It really should have been 3 separate games with separate main characters.  I would not have had so much invested in the story and the endings wouldn't have upset me nearly as much.  

That's an interesting thought perhaps worthy of its own thread. Each game is so different that maybe this would have worked, but when I think about not having the same characters through all the games....nah, this way is better.

[Redbelle]

brettc893 wrote...

 By redeeming I mean, all of the brilliant fan theories that would have made everything better ending up wrong, a grand expansion never coming, things of that nature.

I'm gonna have to go with as soon as Omega came out.  

Held out hope until they announced they were pulling support from ME3 to move onto other projects.

Maybe not os much they would actually change it. More that someone in BW would step forward and talk to independent, professional web journalists and have a frank and open conversation about what they thought about it from their perspective. And what they learnt from it. About their consumers, about narration, about project management.

It would have been great to hear views from the devs. If only to discover why they thought that ending was a fitting end to Shepards story.

[Reorte]

CronoDragoon wrote...

mopotter wrote...
It really should have been 3 separate games with separate main characters.  I would not have had so much invested in the story and the endings wouldn't have upset me nearly as much.  

That's an interesting thought perhaps worthy of its own thread. Each game is so different that maybe this would have worked, but when I think about not having the same characters through all the games....nah, this way is better.

It's better when it works - it's one of the reasons that the really good bits worked as well as they did. Get the audience close to the characters and setting, make them feel a part of it all, and it'll magnify the experience - so you're good bits look really good, and your bad bits really awful. If ME3 was a standalone game the reaction to the ending would largely have been merely "Oh well, that was a load of rubbish, right, what shall I play instead?" because it wouldn't have made a mess of something that had been built so well. After all there is probably a lot worse out there but is standalone bad so doesn't manage to spoil anything.

As for redeeming it I had a slight hope (but not expectation) that the EC would, after that it was clear that heads were buried too deep in the sand.

Modifié par Reorte, 24 juin 2013 - 06:48 .

[Iakus]

mopotter wrote...
Totally!  

It really should have been 3 separate games with separate main characters.  I would not have had so much invested in the story and the endings wouldn't have upset me nearly as much.  

Endings still would have sucked, but at least we wouldn't have been as invested in it.

[CrutchCricket]

CronoDragoon wrote...
But they would have made money off of DLC anyway. You are saying that pissing off your fanbase and then releasing ending DLC to "fix it" and make money is better than just doing normal DLC and making money without all the controversy? No, I'm sorry, I don't buy that.

No, the "pocket controversy" isn't about making money, at least not in the short term on the specific project. It's about generating free press and increasing brand awareness. Mass Effect is a much bigger name now than it was before the controversy and it is due to that controversy. And ME4 will sell better to otherwise clueless "casual" consumers because of that increased awareness. We've already seen that the vocal minority of old fans on the internet doesn't matter, and we've seen how cloudy the ending issue really is. Even now after over a year of more or less intensive railing on the ending, most people here still don't really get where the ending problems come from. Even here it's just buzzwords being thrown back and forth: "closure" and "artistic integrity". And all that detail is irrelevant to the world at large.

It's not about losses and gains of this project. It's very much a long-term strategy. More people now know the name "Mass Effect". And when the newest flashy trailer for ME4 comes out, legions of halpess dolts (i.e. EA's target audience) will remember that ME was huge (but not why), make the connection to the slick visuals and cough up their cash like good sheep.

I don't think any company is going to risk the reputation of making bad games(which is what it turned into, as evidenced by the ratings bombings on Amazon and MC) in order to gain a reputation of fixing their mistake.

Who's making bad games? ME3 is still a good, even great game. Even the most militant anti-enders rate ME3 at a solid 7 or 8/10 except for the ending, unless if they're trolling. The rating bombings was more "dicks on the internet striking because they could" than honest opinion. Downvoting is discounted once its identified. Plus you're forgetting the final step in process- the perception of the "fix" DLC generates more goodwill from the media. How were the holdouts treated post EC? Back to being called "entitled whiners" with a vengeance, only this time they were fewer and they had no more media support themselves. Look at the EC as a PR move. It's brilliance is staggering.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 24 juin 2013 - 06:55 .

[AlanC9]

mopotter wrote...

Ahh, but back in the 60's after the book by an author I enjoyed disappointed me, I learned to check the ending before buying the book.  

Not sure if serious.

[AlanC9]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Who's making bad games? ME3 is still a good, even great game. Even the most militant anti-enders rate ME3 at a solid 7 or 8/10 except for the ending, unless if they're trolling. The rating bombings was more "dicks on the internet striking because they could" than honest opinion. Downvoting is discounted once its identified. Plus you're forgetting the final step in process- the perception of the "fix" DLC generates more goodwill from the media. How were the holdouts treated post EC? Back to being called "entitled whiners" with a vengeance, only this time they were fewer and they had no more media support themselves. Look at the EC as a PR move. It's brilliance is staggering.

Which leaves Bio where? Compared to, say, releasing ME3 with the EC content already in.

[CronoDragoon]

CrutchCricket wrote...
It's not about losses and gains of this project. It's very much a long-term strategy. More people now know the name "Mass Effect". And when the newest flashy trailer for ME4 comes out, legions of halpess dolts (i.e. EA's target audience) will remember that ME was huge (but not why), make the connection to the slick visuals and cough up their cash like good sheep.

Oh, they will remember why Mass Effect was huge, with titles like "Mass Effect ending so bad fans raise 80k for charity". This is not good press. The saying any press is good press is terrible advice for a company. Ask the company that made Amy.

Who's making bad games? ME3 is still a good, even great game.

We aren't talking about realities; we're talking about the perceptions of - as you call them - EA sheep. And what do these casual fans think when they go to Amazon and see Mass Effect 3 rated 2 or 3/5 stars? That is how the reputation of the company is going to be defined for casual fans - not by anything said on this board or anything BW did to fix it.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 24 juin 2013 - 07:02 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Oh, please. It's not flame bait to point out that saying "Bioware is on the decline!" or "not looking good for Bioware!" are posts that have been going on since people have been discussing BioWare games, and essentially mean nothing if the sales don't back that up. Which they haven't. Perhaps Mass Effect 4 will be different, though, who knows?

Technically, I think those complaints didn't start until BG2.

[CrutchCricket]

AlanC9 wrote...

Which leaves Bio where? Compared to, say, releasing ME3 with the EC content already in.

Bio... where?

I see what you did there.

If the EC had been the original ending,  a lot of people would've still complained but I doubt the outcry would've been as big. There might not have been a controversy, in which case ME3 would just fade into "obscurity" (or as obscure as triple A games get) and it'd be business as usual.

I wasn't an RPG player before ME and I don't know that I am now. I only heard about Mass Effect four years after it got released and that's only because a buddy noticed a good deal for 1 and 2 on steam AND only because his bro used ME2 as a graphics benchmark for testing his computer. But I bet I would've heard something about the ME3 controversy even if I hadn't gotten into the series. I know people I worked with that aren't even gamers that heard of it.

That's what ye old pocket controversy does. It makes people aware you exist.

[AlanC9]

I'm just not convinced that this is the sort of publicity they wanted.

[conjmk]

Eterna5 wrote...

I find it weird how the Last of us has an ending that is arguably worse than ME3's and yet people herald it as the best game of this generation.

Guess Bioware fans are just weird. 

Don't even try to spoil any **** from The Last of Us, you guys already ruined Bioshock Infinite's ending for me.

[Reorte]

CrutchCricket wrote...

If the EC had been the original ending,  a lot of people would've still complained but I doubt the outcry would've been as big. There might not have been a controversy, in which case ME3 would just fade into "obscurity" (or as obscure as triple A games get) and it'd be business as usual.

I think that that's probably true. The EC doesn't make any more sense but feels a little better and if people enjoy the ride enough they're more likely to overlook (or at least not get really annoyed) by the mistakes. Goodness knows ME1 and 2 have enough.

[CrutchCricket]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Oh, they will remember why Mass Effect was huge, with titles like "Mass Effect ending so bad fans raise 80k for charity". This is not good press. The saying any press is good press is terrible advice for a company. Ask the company that made Amy.

That's details. In a year or two when ME4 starts trailer-ing, no one will remember that article.

We aren't talking about realities; we're talking about the perceptions of - as you call them - EA sheep. And what do these casual fans think when they go to Amazon and see Mass Effect 3 rated 2 or 3/5 stars? That is how the reputation of the company is going to be defined for casual fans - not by anything said on this board or anything BW did to fix it.

I don't think casuals check Amazon scores lol. And like I said, obvious downvoting is obvious. ME4 will have its own marketing of course. But it will be made so much stronger because people will already know the name Mass Effect. As for the company rep, anyone reading up on the situation a year or two from now will likely only bother reading the latest perception- that of Bioware fixing an issue people had problem with. Like I said, there are people on these boards today that don't know what the meat of the issue really was. You think some casual in 2015's gonna figure it out? Unlikely.