168 réponses à ce sujet

[Ninja Stan]

Armass81 wrote...

But there are common things that are needed and these should be in the next games. When you make a lore, stick to it and dont deviate or retcon(hire some lore guy to check things out), and make sure you have some idea where the story is going before you write it, especially if you plan to do another connected multi parter.

Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Battlestar Galactica, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead. All franchises which have had adaptations and changes to its "lore."

Let's talk about Batman. When you talk about not deviating from or retconning lore, which "lore" are you referring to: the original Detective Comics' "The Bat-Man," Batman: The Animated Series, the Chris Nolan movie trilogy, the Tim Burton movies, the Joel Schumacher movies, the DC comics, the New 52, the 60's TV series, Golden Age, Silver Age, Batman Beyond, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, All-Star Batman and Robin, pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, or Super Friends?

If I wanted to do a modern-day Robin story, do I have to use Damian Wayne? Or Robin Blake? Or can I use Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Carrie Kelly, or Stephanie Brown?

Is Huntress the vigilante identity of Helena Bertinelli, daughter of a mafia family, or Helena Wayne, child of Batman and Catwoman from Earth-2?

Is it safe to assume, based on your assertion that lore should be adhered to and never deviated from, that you have never accepted any Robin other than Dick Grayson?

[Redbelle]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

But there are common things that are needed and these should be in the next games. When you make a lore, stick to it and dont deviate or retcon(hire some lore guy to check things out), and make sure you have some idea where the story is going before you write it, especially if you plan to do another connected multi parter.

Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Battlestar Galactica, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead. All franchises which have had adaptations and changes to its "lore."

Let's talk about Batman. When you talk about not deviating from or retconning lore, which "lore" are you referring to: the original Detective Comics' "The Bat-Man," Batman: The Animated Series, the Chris Nolan movie trilogy, the Tim Burton movies, the Joel Schumacher movies, the DC comics, the New 52, the 60's TV series, Golden Age, Silver Age, Batman Beyond, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, All-Star Batman and Robin, pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, or Super Friends?

If I wanted to do a modern-day Robin story, do I have to use Damian Wayne? Or Robin Blake? Or can I use Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Carrie Kelly, or Stephanie Brown?

Is Huntress the vigilante identity of Helena Bertinelli, daughter of a mafia family, or Helena Wayne, child of Batman and Catwoman from Earth-2?

Is it safe to assume, based on your assertion that lore should be adhered to and never deviated from, that you have never accepted any Robin other than Dick Grayson?

Your right in that the lore has changed alot..... but there is also something, for lack of a better term, I'll call core lore.

Batman adaptations are built upon a theme. One of them being that his parents die. Or in the case of the 52 adaptation. Bruce Wayne dies and Thomas becomes Batman. The adaptation's go on and on, but central to the core lore are certain event's that simply have to happen. In the case of Batman. Someone has to die, another has to be affected by that death to a degree that they become a costumed vigilante. Who ends up being called Batman because Bat's strike fear into the hearts of criminals who are a cowardly and superstitous lot.

<Ahem> Not that I'd know.

Anyways, Grant Morrisons Batman and Robin, though with entirely different characters, still held to core themes of a dark brooding presence, against a lighter chirpier personality. Only Morrison switched these so that Batman was the lighter one and Robin was the bad boy of justice. Deviation, but holding to core values of the dynamic duo's interplay.

When these character deviations appear, while different in many ways, have core similarities that each renditon of the character inhabit's to reinforce that the new version of this character is 'the' character you still know and love.

If however, you decide to take the Starfire approach and turn a warm and loving character who was confident in how she expressed herself, into a person who has no desire to feel a connection, is suddenly given a trait of Attention Deficit Disorder, and will think nothing of sleeping with another man while on vacation while maybe dating another guy who took her on holiday........ the question of, 'who is this person because I don't recognise her' abounds. She may possess the look  and have the Starfire name, but she does not convince as being the character because she does not possess her core lore to dictate who she grew up to be.

You can play with lore. But unless the lore changes in such a way that it evolves in a way that people can roll with, or like science, uses one truth to discover a truth that better fits, playing with lore to convieniately fit what ever situation is conjured up will ultimately lead to more of the same till the lore is garbled mess and need yet another retcon.

Or to put it another way. If your going to change the lore, then prepare the audience. It could be gradual over a span of time. It could be sudden, but listed under the 'elseworlds' title.

Modifié par Redbelle, 06 juillet 2013 - 11:19 .

[Iakus]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

But there are common things that are needed and these should be in the next games. When you make a lore, stick to it and dont deviate or retcon(hire some lore guy to check things out), and make sure you have some idea where the story is going before you write it, especially if you plan to do another connected multi parter.

Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Battlestar Galactica, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead. All franchises which have had adaptations and changes to its "lore."

Let's talk about Batman. When you talk about not deviating from or retconning lore, which "lore" are you referring to: the original Detective Comics' "The Bat-Man," Batman: The Animated Series, the Chris Nolan movie trilogy, the Tim Burton movies, the Joel Schumacher movies, the DC comics, the New 52, the 60's TV series, Golden Age, Silver Age, Batman Beyond, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, All-Star Batman and Robin, pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, or Super Friends?

If I wanted to do a modern-day Robin story, do I have to use Damian Wayne? Or Robin Blake? Or can I use Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Carrie Kelly, or Stephanie Brown?

Is Huntress the vigilante identity of Helena Bertinelli, daughter of a mafia family, or Helena Wayne, child of Batman and Catwoman from Earth-2?

Is it safe to assume, based on your assertion that lore should be adhered to and never deviated from, that you have never accepted any Robin other than Dick Grayson?

Does Robin's identity change from issue to issue?  Or does Robin stay Robin over the course of a storyarc?  Does Battlestar 1980 tie in directly to the new series?  The point being, adaptations and changes to the lore don't happen spontaneously.  they finish the arc.  Or at the very least, they incorporate the changes directly into the arc (such as the Crisis) 

So if Bioware wanted to experiment with Gameof Thrones-meets-Watchmen grimdark storytelling, they should at least have had the courtesy to wait until this storyarc was finished.  The one where my Shepard could actually finish the game as heroic, optimistic, and unbroken as he started.  

Then I could decline to purchase this new brand of storytelling and still have a complete story.  Just like fans of the old Battlestar can decline to watch teh new series without missing anything.

[Armass81]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

But there are common things that are needed and these should be in the next games. When you make a lore, stick to it and dont deviate or retcon(hire some lore guy to check things out), and make sure you have some idea where the story is going before you write it, especially if you plan to do another connected multi parter.

Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Battlestar Galactica, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead. All franchises which have had adaptations and changes to its "lore."

Let's talk about Batman. When you talk about not deviating from or retconning lore, which "lore" are you referring to: the original Detective Comics' "The Bat-Man," Batman: The Animated Series, the Chris Nolan movie trilogy, the Tim Burton movies, the Joel Schumacher movies, the DC comics, the New 52, the 60's TV series, Golden Age, Silver Age, Batman Beyond, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, All-Star Batman and Robin, pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, or Super Friends?

If I wanted to do a modern-day Robin story, do I have to use Damian Wayne? Or Robin Blake? Or can I use Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Carrie Kelly, or Stephanie Brown?

Is Huntress the vigilante identity of Helena Bertinelli, daughter of a mafia family, or Helena Wayne, child of Batman and Catwoman from Earth-2?

Is it safe to assume, based on your assertion that lore should be adhered to and never deviated from, that you have never accepted any Robin other than Dick Grayson?

If Bioware plans to do a reboot of the series they can change the characters and things around, but that is not recommended when your doing the same series and continuity. If something has been established into the lore you cant just go around and change it on the whim or invent some stuff up that makes little sense and then handwave, it can seriously harm the continuity and consistancy of the universe and pull players out of the experience.

Its the writers job to explain the universe theyve created and fill the possible plot holes, not the players. If players are left to scratch their heads in confusion, then the writers have failed. If you have something that contradicts the previously given facts as told by the lore(Sovereign on Citadel, why need him if Catalyst is there?) you have to give an explanation, you cant just handwave it away.  Thats poor writing and planning.

Modifié par Armass81, 07 juillet 2013 - 06:27 .

[Alibenbaba]

I think BioWare 'learned' from their 'mistake' to provide branching, player driven story arcs. Check the gameplay option to disable it - Bioware already felt it was unnecessary for ME3. Also they already told us such a feature is complicated (==expensive) to make. Its rather interesting EA allowed it to be included, given the expense and that Bioware felt it to be 'nice-to-have'.

The next Mass Effect will be a pure cover-and-shoot action game with a simple, go-kill-bad-guy, linear story line based in the ME universe. Its simply cheaper to make, and there are plenty of shooters out there that outsell ME and show that story is a gimmick, not a core feature.

[Swordfishtrombone]

I don't know whether what I consider major flaws, and what Bioware considers flaws are the same thing.

At the very least, I hope they've payed attention to the things people pointed out were wrong with the ending. For me, the major problems were with the writing; it simply isn't satisfying for a gamer to go through a series fighting an enemy that's actively threatening you, and shows no pity or willingness to negotiate, and then, at the end, everything is revealed, and you are now expected to make friends with the enemy, who, all along, they would have you believe, had your best interests at heart.

Not to mention that the details of this revelation seemed to invalidate the whole storyline of ME1.

So consistency in the story please.

And no venturing into fantasy. The genre is SciFi, and everything that happens needs to have at the very least a remotely plausible techno-babble explanation. The "synthesis" ending was pure fantasy, and so implausible as to defy any attempt at making it seem plausible, through techno-babble. Please don't go there ever again, in a sci-fi game series. The genre puts limits on what you should, and should not write, and you put additional limits on yourself by the story that's come before. You should not violate the bounds of the genre, introduce last-minute major characters, try to make your villain into a friend at the last minute, or undermine the story that has already taken place.

If you drop hints earlier of major events (thinking of the dark matter problem alluded to in ME2), don't leave them hanging. Some sort of a tie in with the dark matter problem and the reapers would have been SO much better than what we got.

If these problems are acknowledged as such, and they don't repeat them, I think the rest I can deal with, even if it isn't quite how I'd like it. I don't know what happened with writing the ending, but it worries me that it got through to the finished product as it was.

Seriously, it would even have been better than what we got, if the reapers' motives were left mysterious. That would have been fine.

[o Ventus]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Let's talk about Batman. When you talk about not deviating from or retconning lore, which "lore" are you referring to: the original Detective Comics' "The Bat-Man," Batman: The Animated Series, the Chris Nolan movie trilogy, the Tim Burton movies, the Joel Schumacher movies, the DC comics, the New 52, the 60's TV series, Golden Age, Silver Age, Batman Beyond, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, All-Star Batman and Robin, pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, or Super Friends?

Any of them. The story at hand must come from one of those continuities. Each continuity is different.

If I wanted to do a modern-day Robin story, do I have to use Damian Wayne? Or Robin Blake? Or can I use Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Carrie Kelly, or Stephanie Brown?

Define "modern day". Do you mean post-Flashpoint? In that case, it can't be anybody yet. Jason Todd is dead in all mainstream continuities (and is the Red Hood in those where he's brought back). Dick Grayson is either Nightwing or dead. Tim Drake isn't Robin anymore, Carrie Kelly so far only exists in the Millerverse, Stephanie Brown is pre-Flashpoint (and so doesn't yet exist in the canon), and Damian Wayne is *spoilers*. Carrie is scheduled to appear in the future, so she's the only character who is even remotely possible.

Is Huntress the vigilante identity of Helena Bertinelli, daughter of a mafia family, or Helena Wayne, child of Batman and Catwoman from Earth-2?

Due to Flashpoint, the latter.

Is it safe to assume, based on your assertion that lore should be adhered to and never deviated from, that you have never accepted any Robin other than Dick Grayson?

Yes, I could have. Batman exists in 52 continuities (pre-Flashpoint), so 52 different combinations are posible. Also, going from Robin A to Robin B isn't a lore deviation or a retcon. Dick Grayson becomes Nightwing, so Jason Todd is picked up to continue the Robin mantle. That's not a retcon.

Comic books, especially those where there are divergent realities, are realy not the best example to demonstrate long term narrative coherence (or a lack thereof). It's simply not applicable.

Modifié par o Ventus, 07 juillet 2013 - 01:42 .

[N7recruit]

Well as Stan said there is a difference with what I don't like & what I think was a flat out mistake.
As for mistakes to learn from I'll list my personal ones

1) Don't have characters with no plot relevance.
Jack, Thane, Garrus, Grunt, Kasumi, Zaieed, Jacob, Samara & Kelly. These are fan favorite's who do jack **** in moving the main plot along. What's their reason for being here? Why do we flat out HAVE to recruit these guys? Essentially it boils down to "They Shoot stuff"

Like the sad thing is the only Two Plot relevant Characters in ME2 are Miranda (Useless after Lazarus) & Mordin (Counter Measure to the seeker swarms) Hell even Shepard isn't relevant after ME1 (Visions). He/She shoots stuff and...? That's it
Military Genius? No
Scientist? No
Researcher? No

2) Don't Waste a WHOLE GAME dicking around doing pointless fluff against a meaningless antagonist. The Collector plot could have been widdled down to two or three missions. DONE next mission.

3) Don't make the Antagonists & the Protagonists COMPLETE & UTTER MORONS.
In ME3 (& ME2 for that matter) Shepard's an idiot
Hacket's an idiot
Anderson's an idiot
TIM the poor bastard went 12 rounds with the idiot mallet after being KO-ed in the first round
The Reapers are nerfed beyond all belief & then we have everyone's favorite GodKid.

ALL the characters were either Stupid, had unfulfilled plot potential or were out of character.

4) Character Consistency. Some of the offenders are Liara, Garrus, Legion, Miranda & TIM

5) Removal/ Dumbing of game play mechanics (Exploration, Companion Armour customization, Vehicles & the Dialogue Wheel) although these were more budget/ technical limitations.

& Finally
6) Don't ignore previous plot points (Ilos, Conduit, the Hundagon Weapon) that would be Cooler & more "Mass Effect" IMO in favor of sillier/ Suicidal ones (Earth, Beam run & trusting the Reaper Beam in general)

There are things I don't like such as some narrative decisions & the gammy combat, but about 80% of my problem's with the games are related to the Narrative + Characters so it's more personal taste in my case than anything else.

As long as ME4 has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Shepard trilogy, if it's left to do it's own thing I think it will be MILES BETTER for it.

[o Ventus]

How are Garrus and Miranda not consistent?

[David7204]

I think the point should be that any series or story of considerable length that deals with anything but the most mundane content has continuity hiccups. Every. One. As an unpleasent as that may be, it's reality. And that acting as if Mass Effect is somehow below par for not being perfect is hence really stupid.

Modifié par David7204, 07 juillet 2013 - 03:55 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

But you're leaving out the part about the scale of said continuity hiccups.

The narrative inconsistencies drawn up over the trilogy aren't all massive and universe shattering or suspension of disbelief breaking.

But said massive inconsistencies are there. Mass Effect 3 seems to have all of them.

No one is saying Mass Effect 3 is sub-par for making mistakes. We're saying it's sub-par because it made BIG mistakes.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 07 juillet 2013 - 04:00 .

[David7204]

I know exactly how big the problems are with the ending and the Crucible. I also know that nearly nearly every series I've come across has done worse. Like Stan said, Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter...pretty much any science fiction or fantasy you can think of. Even very highly regarded series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer have had major, major screw-ups. And that doesn't even touch upon the countless stories that maintain a constant level of mediocrity in such things.

The Dark Knight Rises was utterly filled to the brim with such errors. Yet, when it was released, the BSN had nothing but praise for it, proclaiming "THAT is how you end a trilogy!" The dozens of mistakes (and I can name them) were completely forgotten. The Walking Dead? I played the first episode, was pretty unpleasently surprised at how contrived the two big decisions were. Fairly big plot holes. But nobody mentions that. Skyfall? Definitely sloppier than any of the previous movies with Craig. Yet it's received praise on the level of Casino Royale. Even ultra-highly regarded 'realistic' stories like Breaking Bad have made some pretty significant mistakes.

Frankly, you're just complaining about the problems of Mass Effect more because you care about the series more and you expected better.

Does the excuse or justify the very serious problems with the ending and the Crucible? No. But it ought to be the end of this very ridiculous attitude of 'Mass Effect is the stupidest thing ever, ever."

Modifié par David7204, 07 juillet 2013 - 04:19 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

I know exactly how big the problems are with the ending and the Crucible. I also know that nearly nearly every series I've come across has done worse. Like Stan said, Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter...pretty much any science fiction or fantasy you can think of. Even very highly regarded series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer have had major, major screw-ups. And that doesn't even touch upon the countless stories that maintain a constant level of mediocrity in such things.

The Dark Knight Rises was utterly filled to the brim with such errors. Yet, when it was released, the BSN had nothing but praise for it, proclaiming "THAT is how you end a trilogy!" The dozens of mistakes (and I can name them) were completely forgotten. The Walking Dead? I played the first episode, was pretty unpleasently surprised at how contrived the two big decisions were. Fairly big plot holes. But nobody mentions that. Skyfall? Definitely sloppier than any of the previous movies with Craig. Yet it's received praise on the level of Casino Royale. Even ultra-highly regarded 'realistic' stories like Breaking Bad have made some pretty significant mistakes.

Frankly, you're just complaining about the problems of Mass Effect more because you care about the series more and you expected better.

Does the excuse or justify the very serious problems with the ending and the Crucible? No. But it ought to be the end of this very ridiculous attitude of 'Mass Effect is the stupidest thing ever, ever."

And I never said it was the stupidest thing ever, ever. That said, it's really not a ridiculous attitude. I will say that the way that Mass Effect screwed up supersedes those of whatever else you mentioned. 

You change the underlying logic of the series, of the narrative, of the theme.

Mass Effect changes the story from 2+2=4 to 2+2=5. To do a narrative, thematic, and tonal change of the fundamentals of the story, without plausible explanation, is probably the biggest issue you can make.

[David7204]

I can't deny that the betrayal and abandonment of the themes of the series is an immense fault. Although that has less to do with the four options and more to do with Shepard's actions and the actions of the galaxy not counting for anything remotely close to what they should have counted for.

Modifié par David7204, 07 juillet 2013 - 05:22 .

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

I know exactly how big the problems are with the ending and the Crucible. I also know that nearly nearly every series I've come across has done worse. Like Stan said, Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter...pretty much any science fiction or fantasy you can think of. Even very highly regarded series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer have had major, major screw-ups. And that doesn't even touch upon the countless stories that maintain a constant level of mediocrity in such things.

WHen you drag the viewer into it, when you tell them "You shape the stroy.  Your choices affect the outcome" you get people more invested in the story than a passive reader or observer.  Screw-ups become more important.  Because they become our screw-ups

The Dark Knight Rises was utterly filled to the brim with such errors. Yet, when it was released, the BSN had nothing but praise for it, proclaiming "THAT is how you end a trilogy!" The dozens of mistakes (and I can name them) were completely forgotten. The Walking Dead? I played the first episode, was pretty unpleasently surprised at how contrived the two big decisions were. Fairly big plot holes. But nobody mentions that. Skyfall? Definitely sloppier than any of the previous movies with Craig. Yet it's received praise on the level of Casino Royale. Even ultra-highly regarded 'realistic' stories like Breaking Bad have made some pretty significant mistakes.

For all the faults of TDKR, it had an ending that many ME3 players wanted.  People will forgive much if they can at least get teh clisure they need.  "Yeah, things got screwed up, but at least it worked out in the end"  ME3 did not give that.  And the writers apparantly thought (and still think, apparantly) that it was an unimportant detail, unworthy of their efforts

Dunno about praise for Skyfall.  Personally I wasn't too impressed with it.

Frankly, you're just complaining about the problems of Mass Effect more because you care about the series more and you expected better.

Does the excuse or justify the very serious problems with the ending and the Crucible? No. But it ought to be the end of this very ridiculous attitude of 'Mass Effect is the stupidest thing ever, ever."

Darn right we expected better.  This is Bioware.  They've been doing rpgs for fifteen years and ought to know better.  This was beyond a rookie mistake.  This error wrecked three games and tainted an entire IP for some people.  OI wouldn't call Mass Effect itself the stupidest thing ever, but the ending debacle is certainly a contender for the title.

Now with this new game, they're going to have to tell me why I should trust again.  Why should I get invested in this galaxy again, after being sucker-punched not once but twice.  Why take the journey when the destination could lead over a cliff again?  Show me that Bioware has learned that lesson, and maybe my faith will be rekindled.  But so far I' have not seen or heard anything to that effect.

[Armass81]

N7recruit wrote...

As long as ME4 has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Shepard trilogy, if it's left to do it's own thing I think it will be MILES BETTER for it.

Yeah... Until ME5 comes along and the cycle starts all over again, if the cynic in me is proven correct.  Again things just start to happen "because" and then handwave. I think if that happens it should be safe to say that the devs really didnt learn anything, or just heard what they wanted to hear and ignored the rest.

Or the series is reduced to simple, Halo like shooter sludge, where the only thing that we will control anymore is the character moving and shooting. Whopdedoo.

Of course I could be wrong as I would hope, they could really improve the series from this point forward, creating space opera masterpieces in storytelling and rpg shooter experience... but reality tends to not agree with my hopes often.

Modifié par Armass81, 07 juillet 2013 - 05:39 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ninja Stan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

And they'll make decisions that are best for *their* game. 

Not what the fans want. If they keep putting their own interest ahead of the fans, then they're going to lose said fans. And money.

There is a world of difference between "doing something the fans want" and "doing everything the fans want." BioWare cannot afford to listen to everyone and implement each individual's preference/tolerance in the game. And doing so would affect the cohesion of the game. Ultimately, it's BioWare and EA investing all the money and work into the game, so it's their risk.

I doubt any gamer is being reviled as a "people-hating gamer who's going to get fired and lose all his friends" because he didn't heed his friends', family's, and children's advice on what job to take. The kids want him to be a fireman or an astronaut, the friends want him to be a bartender or brewery worker to get perks, and his family wants him to do something monotonous and boring but makes a lot of money. Does this gamer then take three or four different jobs to satisfy everyone's wants? Or does he take that advice into consideration when making the decision that's best for him? And will he actually get fired and lose all his friends just because he didn't take that bartender job? In fact, is anyone in his life going to resent him for choosing the job that's right for him?

I"ll be sitting with the popcorn when they panic again and again over their games. It will be hilarious watching them fail. Constantly.

There comes a point when, if you want to survive as a company, you have to swallow your pride and do what the fans want. BioWare is nearing that point (if they haven't reached it already). Deny it if you want - It'll be your funeral, so to speak. Their trust is strained. Their credibility is strained. People aren't talking about BW for the great stories they provide anymore. They're talking about the latest way they managed to irk the fans. 

Predictions like this have been made since the Baldur's Gate days. At various times, BioWare was going to lose all its fans because they didn't make another BG game, because they didn't use AD&D 2E rules, because they sold out and made a Star Wars game, because they made a console game, because they made an action RPG, because they made a multiplatform game, because they included gay romances, because they didn't include enough gay romances, because they included romances at all, because they didn't include enough romances, because they were purchased by Elevation Partners, because they got purchased by EA, because Ray and Greg were no longer directly in charge of BioWare Edmonton, because Ray and Greg were still EA executives, because they created a sci-fi franchise, because ME2 was different from ME1, because or DRM, because of DLC, because of microtransactions, because they made ME3 MP, because they  kept improving ME3 MP, because they stopped supporting ME3 MP, because EA hasn't changed, because EA is changing too much, because of things I've said on the forum, because of things Priestly has said on the forums, because of things other developers say on the forums, because developers don't talk on the forums, because EA hates customers, and much more.

If you'll notice some of those things are contradictory, and some are based on acceptance of something previously reviled.

That's why I think it's absolutely ludicrous that BW is entirely denying mistakes with ME3, saying that it was the fans issue. Maybe not every person who bought the game rose up in discontent, but not every person is a fan. Most don't care about what they buy. They play it, sometimes finish it, and move on. They don't get attached. The fans do, and it seems the fans weren't too keen on BW's story. On their interpretation.

They can either keep the course and risk losing more fans, or they can try to build trust and credibilty again.

"Fans" and "customers" buy the game the same way, and buy the same number of games (usually 1). Given that this is the case, and the alleged "fans" are the most critical, the most demanding, and the loudest--while the supposed "customers" are content with just playing the game and moving on--why would any company cater to "the fans" rather than just "the customers"? Remember that "the fans" are also the ones threatening boycotts if they don't get what they want, threatening to not buy anything from the company again for various reasons, insulting the company and the devs, and being extremely negative about things. I mean, you're kind of arguing my point for me here.

Now, I know not every fan is a certain way and not every customer is a certain way, but my point is that there are better ways of communicating your dislikes than making accusations and insults, and believing that one has the only/best/right opinion about the game and everyone else is bad/wrong. For one thing, dismissing some people as merely "customers" while calling yourself a "fan" isn't that cool. And like I said above, if that "fan" is acting like a jerk towards the game, company, or developers, why would any company want to listen to them, seeing as you've made the case that a "customer" pays the same money but doesn't make the same amount of stink about it? Not trying to dissuade you from giving feedback, just trying to improve that communication.

And there's only one way they can do that, since all the PR and fancy words in the world aren't going to make change my mind. That's to release a game, and the more I hear about this game, the less it sounds good.

I disagree that it's the only way, but you seem to believe that the only way BioWare can show whether they've "learned from their mistakes" is to release the next game. So why keep harping about it, since your mind won't be changed for a couple of years anyway? I mean, it's a little redundant to keep saying "my mind won't be changed" and then arguing with me about it, isn't it?

Because above any mistake that BioWare makes in a video game, or writing, or narrative, or whatever, is the mistake of denying that their is one. To be so arrogant as to look the fans in the eye and say "No. You're wrong. You have the problem, not us, and we're going to continue making the games that we like, not what you like" and expect us to not feel insulted, to not hold resentment.

Some corrections:

BioWare has never said that the fans have a problem if they didn't like the ME3 endings.
BioWare has never claimed that everyone will like everything they do.
BioWare has never forced anyone to purchase anything.
BioWare makes the games they feel fans will enjoy and which will sell.
BioWare does not exclude fans from providing feedback, but also does not promise that feedback will always be implemented.
BioWare is a business that exists to make money. To make that money, they need to sell games to fans/customers.
BioWare can't sell games to fans/customers if they drive those fans/customers away.
BioWare likely has done more research and has more data on what people likely want in their games than someone saying "I know what everyone wants."
BioWare is not magic, and can't accurately predict how fans/customers will respond to the game before release.
There is no magic formula for how to make a great game.

They sound a lot like the Texas State Senate right now. Or the NRA.

I believe that giving the fans what they want would work perfectly for them.

There's a reason doing that is the best business model in history. It's the best way to endear yourself to the fans. That makes them more willing and open to be accepting of their new games and stories, and of course, more open to the mistakes and misses.

And here I disagree. "The fans" is a general term, and EA/BioWare know some of the things "the fans" want. The problem is that, here in the community, people are arguing for what they, as an individual fan, wants. And individual fans want a variety of things, some of them contradictory. If you want more gay romances in a game and someone else wants fewer gay romances, then BioWare is necessarily going to disappoint someone no matter what they do about gay romances. And that's just with a binary choice. If you want more gay romances, Person A wants fewer gay romances, Person B wants a specific number of gay romances, Person C wants fewer but mandatory gay romances, Person D wants all bi romances, Person E wants an inequal number of gay and straight romances but no bi romances, Person F wants an equal number of gay, straight, and bi romances, Person F wants... blah blah blah... eventually, it's going to be impossible to please anyone!

But if BioWare instead looks at trends and what they want to do with the game, yes, they can "make the game we like, and not what the fans like" because fans/customers might want specific things, but they will accept other things. You might want more gay romances, but you might accept the same number of gay romances. Heck you might even accept fewer gay romances if those romances are especially well written. I believe this is the case with most any of the demands, preferences, desires, and needs being discussed in this community. Because, somehow, you were able to fall in love with the Mass Effect franchise even though you never had one before ME1 and wouldn't have known anything about what you wanted from it.

BioWare, from this lowly... consumer's (since fan isn't a word I'd use to describe myself at this point) perspective, isn't in a position to really choose the path of artistic integrity.

First of all, "artistice integrity" was never used by BioWare to dismiss or deflect criticism. It was used by Ray Muzyka in a blog post showing his support for the ME3 team and all the work they did. This was done at a time when the team might have been demoralized by all the shouting and screaming over ME3's ending shortly after release, and Ray wanted to stand behind his people, and do so publicly. His kindness and support of his people are major reasons why BioWarians so enjoyed working for him.

And if you'll read the blog post again, Ray never used the term "artistic integrity." I believe he used the term "artistic vision," which is a real thing that all big creative projects aim for. The project lead has a certain vision of how the project will go, and everyone else strives to adhere to the artistic vision so that they don't get off track. It is less "I'm doing what I want despite negative feedback" and more "this is the goal that 100+ people on the project are working toward."

Besides that, many people throwing around that term don't realize that they want BioWare to have artistic integrity. People want BioWare to continue to make good, story-based games and write deep, meaningful characterizations. They want BioWare to keep writing great stories in immersive settings despite everything in the industry telling them to go more casual with less involved storylines. "Artistic integrity," before the internet turned it into an insult, is what you want from creative people. It's what allows creative people to make "what they want" even if it won't sell or is unpopular. It's what allows creative people to take risks and innovate. Think about it.

I think we just spent a lot of time talking past each other.

I'll bite the bullet first, I didn't bother to really define what I meant by a lot of things. 

You answered things I wasn't questioning or really cared about. The whole "what each specific fan wants" talk is rather irrelevant. It seemed like you were using that defense to shut me out than to shut me down. I guess that's also my fault since I didn't stipulate that, but I see you use that defense a lot, and it is a bit of a misleading argument. 

What do the fans universally want? 

I want narrative cohesion. I want thematic unity with the rest of the series. There are a few fairly common complaints about those in regards to ME3 that I've heard from many people. I can't speak for all of them, of course, but I can listen to what the noise seems to be saying.  I'm not talking about complaining about X or Y not being in the game when when we got A or B. People do that sure. Everyone does. 

What I see a lot of people (myself included) complaining about is a disting lack of 1 or 2. Things that make the story function. Consistency with lore, narrative cohesion, reasonable explanations, and thematic unity. Things that are essential to making the story, any story function properly, things that were ignored. 

Take the whole speculations thing. People weren't upset that they had to speculate. They were upset that that was really all that was left for them. Entire portions of narrative seem to be missing. 

You seem to be intent on saying everything is subjective. While I agree, what about when it seems the people don't want ambiguity when the developer does? When the people, the consumers, be they "fans" or "casuals" want the story to make sense?

To use an example, why did BioWare go out of their way to make their ending so incoherent with not only the established lore of the series, but biology, science, logic, and reason of this world we live in? Why would they think that cutting common sense is a good idea? Why would changing the inherent logic of the story from 2+2=4 to 2+2=5, without explanation, be considered good storytelling?

Why would they want that as their artistic vision?

This is subjective: I'm a pragmatic man. I'm rather blunt with my assertions: I'm all for constructive criticism when it's applicable... but....

But I also believe in leveling with people. To quote Tom Skerritt in Top Gun (or any of my NCO's, advisers, and superior's being a military man myself): "I'm not going to blow sunshine up your ass."There's no need to give nice, traditional, human resource criticism here. I'm not going to start with something good, say something that "need's improvement while sugar coating it", then finishing with a compliment. It was a bad idea. Abandoning common sense in your story is a bad. Idea. It's dumb. It's stupid. It's lousy. 

I'm not seeing the work of an artists or writers here at BioWare can be called artists here in this context. 

If they think that's good, all I see is pretentious, self-righteous, and arrogant.... idiots for lack of a better suiting word.

That is not high-level storytelling. That is not good storytelling. That's barely storytelling at all.

Why would they go out of their way to be so bad here? It's far-fetched, unreasonable, defies logic, and, most-importantly, defies the premise of the story, the narrative, the themes, the vision of the rest of the story.

I'm not calling everyone at BioWare idiots, or even saying that everyone that had anything to do with the ending, even SuperMac or CHud are definitive idiots.

I'm saying that their vision was a bad idea. A very bad idea. Irredeemably bad. There's no good nice criticism to give (and I will say that I believe the adage of "if you don't have anything good/nice to say, don't say anything at all" is complete crap. Sometimes, an insult is the best criticism you can give. Hurting someone's feelings is nothing to getting them to not make the same mistake again. That comes from the military in me.)

The most constructive criticism to give in this case is to tell them that their idea sucked. Tell them why it sucked.  Plain and simple.

I'm not a person who believes anything and everything can be art. 

A picture of a pile of dog crap is still a picture of a pile of dog crap. A picture of chair in black and white is a picture of a chair in black and white. 

That's not art. 

I really dislike it when people say that everything is art. It's why I don't find creative people useful unless they actually have something to provide. I thought about what you said in your very last paragraph, and I don't agree. 

We'll chalk that one down to differences in opinion. You're obviously a much more... right-brained person (or at least hold much more appreciation for the right hemisphere of the brain) than I.

And to all of the above, I'd like to know the reason why they thought anything was good. BW never came out and really said what they were thinking, or where there idea of what the ending should be was, or what they wanted to convey, or whatever. And whether or not I'm wrong in calling Mass Effect 3 a failure of modern art is beside the point. The point is that they aren't trying to give me any reason to think otherwise. Or anyone else.

What I find to be rather ridiculous is how BioWare seems content to not try to defend it, or explain the ending. I'm not complaining that devs don't come onto the forum to talk. I'm wondering why they don't go to comic-con, or E3, or PAX, or whatever and explain what they were going for. Answer questions there. Re-establish that connection.

Which leads me...

To another point, will you argue that BW's relationship with fans, their all around credibility in the industry (and that of EA), their publicity today, and the general opinion of them currently is at an all-time low? 

You misrepresented my argument. You said all those things that gamers have been saying for years about BioWare, or Bethesda, or Bungie, or Valve, or Activision, or whatever.

My argument is that BioWare's credibility is in the john right now, and that the PR during the time after the endings was nothing short of disastrous. 

I don't want to see BioWare fail. I want them to be able to have an artistic vision, or to use artistic integrity.

But neither do I want them to just get away with mistakes (and this goes beyond video game products).

Bioware doesn't have the credibility to really get away with saying artistic integrity right now.

People are being wary with them. As I said in my post, they've irked their fans. 

And I do think it was rather pathetic of them to point to the critics when the fans got upset. 

They're trying to deny that they did anything wrong. And I don't care if they were right in their own eyes, many, many people think they did wrong. And they got a lot of bad publicity for it. That's what has turned me off of them more than any of their products ever could - their staunch belief (and some would say arrogance) that they did no wrong. And the vernacular that they used to... enforce that belief to the public. That really didn't win them many favors.

Consider me a bit of a contradictionary person - while I believe in levelling and being firm with people individually, or even here, I have nothing to lose, and that I'm doing them a service by voicing my opinion, whether or not they like it or even want to hear it, I don't believe it's alright for a company to do this. They have everything to lose. It doesn't matter that you listed off the things BioWare did or did not say. The effects were clear; people were angry and upset (and still are). And they were getting upset, not with what BW had to say, but how they chose to say it.

I think you're being a bit defensive there with the idea of BW doing what suits them best. In an industry, where they make a product (not art), it's in their best interest to make money. The best way to make money is to please their fans.

Again, I'm not saying, nor did I ever say, do everything that every fan tells you. I'm saying that the people wanted a story, that was compelling, and made sense, and worked as a story. Agree or not whether they provided that, enough people thought that they didn't provide that they sparked one of the largest public outcries towards a video game in history. 

I respect and admire people who do what they want to do and what suits them, whether or not they actually care or worry about what people tell them or feel about them.

If they do this with an endeavor that runs on monetary profit and hope to gain money from said people who's opinions they don't care about, I call them an idiot.

I'm not one of the guys that flings insults, death threats, or other asinine stupidity at people (unless I genuinely believe it), though in this case, I don't do it towards a developer or customer either.

I consider the people who are passionate to raise a stink and insult the product and legitimately question the intent of the author, writer, developer, artist, etc. to be the people while still being somewhat civil as the people to address. I consider myself one of said people. If the developer's get demoralized, or get hurt feelings, then tough.

"It's nothing personal, but your idea sucked, and here's why it sucked. There's nothing positive to say about it really." That's strong, constructive criticism in my opinion. Not trying to be a jerk, but for someone like me who really does have a natural disposition to come off that way, that's how I'm going to call it.

Not to address their concerns in a game, but to come out and verbally address what the intent on the creator's part was.

"It was a bad idea. We want to know why you thought, or think, that it was a good idea."

There is such a thing as creator's screwing up their own universe and taking things too far. In my opinion, George Lucas did it. Bioware, again in my opinion, is starting to slip down that slope as well, in their attitude to approaching games. And not in the ways that you outlined as people typically doing in the past with the different stylings and statements about different things.

Consider us the fans who simply want to keep BW at their edge. We aren't owed anything, no, but I can't help but think that nothing but good can come from tossing us a bone.

And to reiterate finally:

This is of course, my opinion of things. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 07 juillet 2013 - 06:25 .

[Ninja Stan]

Whether we agree or disagree, I'm happy to see so many comic book nerds like me in this discussion. Thanks, folks!

[Xamufam]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

This XD
Fans do not want secondary belief broken & they don't want a religious theme there it doesnt not belong

secondary belief
Inside it, what [the author] relates is 'true:' it accords with the laws of
that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside.
The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather
art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at
the little abortive Secondary World from the outside. -J.R.R. Tolkien

Modifié par Troxa, 08 juillet 2013 - 09:33 .

[Iakus]

Troxa wrote...
Fans do not want secondary belief broken.

secondary belief
Inside it, what [the author] relates is 'true:' it accords with the laws of
that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside.
The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather
art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at
the little abortive Secondary World from the outside. -J.R.R. Tolkien

I gotta figure out how to squeeze that quote into my sig.  It's so freaking appropriate to what's wrong with ME3

[Dubozz]

Armass81 wrote...

Dubozz wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

Mac Walters is the main writer again....

What does that tell you?

Is this true?

Apparently...

Well, maybe he is not a lead writer this time, hopefully. 

[Mathias]

Ninja Stan wrote...

I think that there will be a big difference in what BioWare thinks are the mistakes it needs to learn from and what the fans think are the mistakes that need to be learned from. BioWare has to make decisions that are the best for the game. Some fans believe that only their opinion/taste/preference/tolerance matters and want the game more tailored to themselves. This is not something BioWare is interested in doing, nor is "what Francis R. Gamer wants in the next game" necessarily a "mistake" in ME3.

There's plenty of truth to that, but there were things in Mass Effect 3 that were widely regarded to be a mistake. The ones that immediately come to mind are:

1. The glaringly noticable and severe inflation of autodialogue. 
2. The ending and how it was written.
3. How poorly handled the choices were. Bioware themselves admitted they didn't plan out the choices well, and didn't expect the crazy amount of variations the Suicide Mission would create. 

But in terms of Bioware learning from their mistakes, ME4 is being handled by a different team so I'm not even sure if this applies here.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 08 juillet 2013 - 04:24 .

[shodiswe]

I did like Citadel, which was their last piece of work. And the main game had several good parts, a few that could have seemed more clear, Rannoch was good, but some of it coudl have used soem more explaining, or at least a codex entry explaining things(depending on save game parameters). And the priority earth mission/s that didn't seem finnished to me.

Modifié par shodiswe, 08 juillet 2013 - 04:45 .

[latvianboilol]

Honestly, in my opinion, Bioware's biggest mistake was showing that it's a possibility that Shepard survived, but then said his story is done. No closure. Still time to fix it though

[Iakus]

That's a big part of it, but not the whole thing.

The link in my sig has the fix for that, though For PC users, anyway:P