168 réponses à ce sujet

[DarthLaxian]

iakus wrote...

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.

that's one of the best postings on these forums - that is my worst problem with ME3 (!)...it threw the old narrative out (hopefull - you have a chance, your decisions matter, you are important, you can win etc.) and replaced it by one that does not fit like painting a wall in bright yellow and suddenly switching to grey or even black - it does not fit IMHO

yeah, i would have loved to finish the series on the same not that i started it:

Kicking the bad guys behind and while challenging, i can really win (not sort oft not loose - which is kind of forced, too...and that "Refuse and you loose"-****slap....<_< sorry bioware, not what i "signed up" for (at least not the first two games and then pre-ordering the last one and getting this bull-crap?...sorry, but that's just like being told to expect beautiful female dancers (we were being told no A/B/C-Ending and no one told us that the game was hopeless etc. - it would have meant loosing buyers and you guys knew etc.) and getting gay dancers instead (i mean yeah, still naked dancers, but i don't like males so the difference for me is HUGE!) and then getting slapped (refuse and you loose ending) for telling the gays to get lost

=> note: i don't have anything against gays, i was just looking for a visual example everyone can understand!

greetings LAX

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 08 juillet 2013 - 10:15 .

[cuzsal]

no

but will see what they do with DA3

but at this point I have already lost hope for them so its not like they can fall any farther in the hole..well it is EA so guess they could lol

[MrFob]

Ninja Stan wrote...

MrFob wrote...

I got to say, I am surprised where that rather defensive attitude is coming from Stan.

I try not to sound defensive. I'm just trying to help people become more constructive on the forum and communicate what it is they actually want to communicate. If people want to provide feedback in an effort to help BioWare improve their subsequent games, there are better ways to do that than simply grouse and complain or call for someone's firing or failing to take anyone else's opinion into account.

I think it's obvious that the matter of what is considered a mistake and what isn't is subjective and up to each person's perspective. There are people on these boards who are of the opinion that no mistakes were made throughout the ME trilogy, there are others who think it was a total screw up and there is every colour of the spectrum in between. People can hardly do more than express their own opinions on the matter.

And some of those opinions are based on unreasonable expectations, ignorance of the game development process or how business works, or idealism on the relationship between gamer and developer. As I've been involved in the industry, I hope to shed a little light on the process and improve communication between community members and the developers they hope will listen to their feedback.

And believe you me, some folks aren't nearly as objective about such things as you might think. Over the last 11 years in this community, I've seen a wide spectrum of comments and attitudes.

Also, since the statement "what isn't good" is highly subjective by definition and therefore basically equivalent with "what I don't like", I don't quite get your point there either. Of course, you can see it from the perspective of the developers, that's fine but it's also just a perspective (it happens to be the only one that counts in terms of development but still). You can also see it from the perspective of "what is good for the financial success of the franchise", that's equally valid but it still is just a perspective and certainly doesn't cover quality as a whole.

There is a difference between "I didn't like how Mac treated ME3's endings" and "MAc should be fired because his writing sucked." A big difference between "I would have preferred the story to go this way" and "BioWare destroyed the franchise."

Mind you, all of these inconsistencies on their own are rather minor and I know that anyone can come up with a long winded explanation and counter for each of these points but put together, they just hurt the overall consistency of the universe in my opinion.
Yes, this is my personal opinion, this is where I and I alone believe BW made mistakes and I hope they will learn from them and try to do better in the future of this franchise (because I really like Mass Effect, despite these - subjective - flaws).
Will they? I don't know but I hope so (I am sure there are people who hope for the opposite).

And you provided specific and helpful examples of what you liked and didn't like.

That's all fair enough. I was mainly surprised that you'd point all of this out in response to someone who actually made a rather reasonable statement, even acknowledging specifically that they're aware that it's only an opinion (but maybe it was just the title).

In any case, coming back to the issue of continuety (and I am glad this became somewhat of a focal point of this thread), your examples (Star Trek, Star Wars, Batmna, etc.) are correct of course. However, there is one crucial difference to what happened (in my opinion ) in the ME trilogy:
The reboots you describe (e.g. the latest Star Trek reboot but also the Batman ones as far as I know) are just that: reboots. They occur on between different instances of the franchise. I am still not necessarily a fan of them but that is acceptable to me. I can live with the fact that the new Star Trek movies have nothing to do with, say, The Next Generation. However, I would have been very upset if, say, in the middle of the Next Generation, Section 31 (Star Trek's Cerberus if you will) had taken over the Federation and Captain Picard would now work for them.
Do you see the difference? Mass Effect, with save game import feature and all, was - from the very beginning - marketed as a cohesive trilogy and IMO at leastin that context it is not too much to ask for consistency of characters, circumstances and a narrative theme (although I admit the last is difficult to pinpoint).
If BW wants to make "The Incredible Mass Effect in the 12th Dimension" and that's a new RTS series with with the biotic god as protagonist, cell shading graphics and pink reapers, than I'd have no problem with that. Well, I'd probably still hate it and never buy it but at least I could just ignore it. Haveing the amount of inconsistencies (which I described in my first post here) within the first ME trilogy however was bit too much for me.

Modifié par MrFob, 09 juillet 2013 - 01:56 .

[DarthLaxian]

and with that (last statement) i can totally agree with - sad as that is!

greetings LAX

[Jay-Em]

well, it's pretty simple actually: Bioware's "mistakes" aren't mistakes as far as they are concerned. So, no "fixing" will be goin on.

For me, as a customer, I'll decide for myself if I want to spend money on Bioware's vision, or start to look elsewhere.

I'll decide if I buy the next installment when the game is there. After all, it's just that, a game. My life, and many other's lives won't fall apart if Bioware pursues their own vision, and it deviates from what I would like.

Plenty of other games to spend my hard-earned money on.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Answering the title question: No, they have not.

[Dominus]

It depends on the subject for what's considered a mistake. To my knowledge, fans have had issues with things back in ME1 that didn't bother me at all, i.e. elevators, and yes, the mako(though I think that issue had more to do with level design that seemed to encourage wall-climbing on absurdly steep slopes).

If we're referring to the infamous ending that every gaming website has covered ad nauseum, yes, they would've had to have learned something from the debacle. Even if they took a more surreal direction for the end, I'd expect a far more well-written one for said Mass Effect Title.

Besides the above, I hope they give opportunity for more planet exploration, and a bit less combative-focus. It fit well enough for a War of the Worlds-esque game like ME3, but another End-of-The-World scenario isn't what I'd expect this time around. May be a personal story, though this is just speculation.

Anywho, we'll have a better idea when the trailers/gameplay demos start coming in...whenever that is.

Modifié par DominusVita, 10 juillet 2013 - 12:48 .

[spirosz]

Well, a mistake in our eyes may not be a mistake in theirs. So I guess, if a feature that is heavily requested to be removed in the next game or worked upon is seen as a "mistake", then sure, you can say they either learned or ignored the feedback.

Over-hype is a norm, but I still don't fault them for being ambitious with the series, especially in the whole "choice" matters and what that did, in terms of weight on their shoulders, as well as the stress that came along with it, like animation, considering what players did and so on.

In my opinion, they should continue doing what they want, but if doesn't fit with what I want, then that is fine, I'll speak with my wallet.

[Iakus]

Jay-Em wrote...

well, it's pretty simple actually: Bioware's "mistakes" aren't mistakes as far as they are concerned. So, no "fixing" will be goin on.

Leviathan: " There was no mistake, it still serves its purpose"

:lol:

[Addictress]

 I follow David Gaider's Tumblr and I wrote a fan letter telling him that I know that he's on the Dragon Age team, but if he attends any Bioware parties, to please remind everybody to stay vigilant against turning Mass Effect 4 into another modern military shooter, and to never lose sight of the allure of good lore and the character relationships and writing.

I kind of regret that fan letter and I wish I could take it back because now I probably look like a creeper, but I know I'm not the only fan who feels the anxiety over this.

Do you think this was unwise? ;___;

[Zuzu Mumu]

I would think really really hard on what you come up with next Bioware , you broke my heart once , never again.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I don't think there's any use going at Bioware with the mindset of what they did wrong.

I truly hope Bioware understands what the backlash they got over Mass Effect 3 on amazon, metacritic, etc. stems from (compared to their other Mass Effect games)... and correct their course.

I really don't think anything else needs to be said, I highly doubt Bioware (as smart as they are) would want to let the negative user press they got for ME3 happen again if they can help it.



My answer to the OP's question:

For their sake, I hope so. 

Bioware's got a franchise to save and a reputation to regain with their next title.  Let's hope they got the wake up call they needed after all this time.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 10 juillet 2013 - 09:27 .

[JonathonPR]

Doubtful. People tend to apologize when their mistakes are known if they believe they are mistakes. If bioware does not believe they made mistakes than they will only continue their behavior. It is sometimes an act to not look weak by assuming a stance of infallibility. It happens a lot with politicians in order to keep the support of the voting population that is emotionally or ethically tied to their decision. The behavior usually appears after the apex of power or success. It can be long and drawn out decline or a sudden and abrupt end to a politician or company. Internal politics can distract from meaningful action.

All I want is a retcon of ME2 and ME3. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Sunk_costs

[The_Other_M]

The fact that they are promoting Dragon Age 3 the same way they were promoting Mass Effect 3: i.e--calling it "the perfect starting point for new players to the franchise". But now they're going as far as stripping the number "3" from the title just to hammer their point home, even though the events of Dragon Age 3 are a direct consequence of the events from Dragon Age 2.  And for some reason it'll also have some form of multiplayer mode in it, I'm gonna go with NO.

They haven't learned s***.

Modifié par The_Other_M, 10 juillet 2013 - 10:26 .

[Ninja Stan]

MrFob wrote...

That's all fair enough. I was mainly surprised that you'd point all of this out in response to someone who actually made a rather reasonable statement, even acknowledging specifically that they're aware that it's only an opinion (but maybe it was just the title).

You can't share an opinion online without expecting a response. Labeling a post as "opinion" doesn't protect it from rebuttal or scrutiny. I mean, many critics of ME3's ending mention "artistic integrity" as a dismissal or deflection of criticism, as something they're not a fan of.

In any case, coming back to the issue of continuety (and I am glad this became somewhat of a focal point of this thread), your examples (Star Trek, Star Wars, Batmna, etc.) are correct of course. However, there is one crucial difference to what happened (in my opinion ) in the ME trilogy:

The reboots you describe (e.g. the latest Star Trek reboot but also the Batman ones as far as I know) are just that: reboots. They occur on between different instances of the franchise. I am still not necessarily a fan of them but that is acceptable to me. I can live with the fact that the new Star Trek movies have nothing to do with, say, The Next Generation. However, I would have been very upset if, say, in the middle of the Next Generation, Section 31 (Star Trek's Cerberus if you will) had taken over the Federation and Captain Picard would now work for them.

The new Star Trek movies can be considered direct sequels to the original franchise, since Leonard Nimoy's Spock character exists and knows about events as far back as Star Trek II. It can be considered a reboot, yes, but it is also considered a continuation of the lore, and alternate timeline where Vulcan has been destroyed.

Do you see the difference? Mass Effect, with save game import feature and all, was - from the very beginning - marketed as a cohesive trilogy and IMO at leastin that context it is not too much to ask for consistency of characters, circumstances and a narrative theme (although I admit the last is difficult to pinpoint).

Yes, I see the difference and always have. The post I was responding to was the assertion that "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 Trek works because they've moved the focus to an alternate timeline. Batman arguably works because Crisis on Infinite Earths and 52 worked to unite the various timelines and remove inconsistencies in characters' origins built up over years, sometimes decades, of writers and creative teams not caring about continuity.

But comics do build up the lore surrounding a character, and while comics and characters stay current to new generations of readers, they do not age at the same rate withint continuity. My example was Batman. He was an adult when the character first appeared in 1939, yet he remains a 40-some year-old guy. Each movie and adaptation changes Batman's origin just a little, and even over the course of 75 years, the comics continuity has changed. 

If BW wants to make "The Incredible Mass Effect in the 12th Dimension" and that's a new RTS series with with the biotic god as protagonist, cell shading graphics and pink reapers, than I'd have no problem with that. Well, I'd probably still hate it and never buy it but at least I could just ignore it. Haveing the amount of inconsistencies (which I described in my first post here) within the first ME trilogy however was bit too much for me.

I guess my point was that creators should have some leeway to develop characters and settings to fit the current project. Like in Star Wars Episodes 1-3, where George Lucas depicted well-loved, well-known characters in ways fans of the original trilogy didn't like, such as C-3PO being built by Anakin Skywalker, or Boba Fett being the son of the genetic template of the clone troopers.

No, I didn't care for that treatment of the characters, nor did I care for Nathan Fillion's character in the final season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who became the season's Big Bad all of a sudden and was defeated just as quickly. But I disagree that episodic stories need to stick to specific lore or plot points. It might be better to do so, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary.

[JamesFaith]

The_Other_M wrote...

The fact that they are promoting Dragon Age 3 the same way they were promoting Mass Effect 3: i.e--calling it "the perfect starting point for new players to the franchise". But now they're going as far as stripping the number "3" from the title just to hammer their point home, even though the events of Dragon Age 3 are a direct consequence of the events from Dragon Age 2.  And for some reason it'll also have some form of multiplayer mode in it, I'm gonna go with NO.

They haven't learned s***.

They stripped 3 from simple reason - because fans complained about 2 in DA2 when there was different hero then Warden.

Also DA:I is more direct consequences of  book DA: Asunder. DA2 was just first spark, true beginning of war was rebelion in White tower and schisma between templars nad Divine in book.

And DA was always more kinder to new players because there wasn't any main storyline like Reapers in ME trilogy. You got two separate stories with different heroes, just few shared characters here.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 10 juillet 2013 - 10:48 .

[MrFob]

Ninja Stan wrote...

MrFob wrote...

That's all fair enough. I was mainly surprised that you'd point all of this out in response to someone who actually made a rather reasonable statement, even acknowledging specifically that they're aware that it's only an opinion (but maybe it was just the title).

You can't share an opinion online without expecting a response. Labeling a post as "opinion" doesn't protect it from rebuttal or scrutiny. I mean, many critics of ME3's ending mention "artistic integrity" as a dismissal or deflection of criticism, as something they're not a fan of.

Of course not, that would make these boards very boring.
However, now you changed the argument. I was never arguing against anyone critizing an opinion, I like these sorts of discussions. In this case though, I was surprised that you seemed to take issue with the fact that it was an opinion in the first place ("what you like" vs. "what is good"). I am all fine with debating opinions (as we are doing now in the rest of our posts).

In any case, coming back to the issue of continuety (and I am glad this became somewhat of a focal point of this thread), your examples (Star Trek, Star Wars, Batmna, etc.) are correct of course. However, there is one crucial difference to what happened (in my opinion ) in the ME trilogy:

The reboots you describe (e.g. the latest Star Trek reboot but also the Batman ones as far as I know) are just that: reboots. They occur on between different instances of the franchise. I am still not necessarily a fan of them but that is acceptable to me. I can live with the fact that the new Star Trek movies have nothing to do with, say, The Next Generation. However, I would have been very upset if, say, in the middle of the Next Generation, Section 31 (Star Trek's Cerberus if you will) had taken over the Federation and Captain Picard would now work for them.

The new Star Trek movies can be considered direct sequels to the original franchise, since Leonard Nimoy's Spock character exists and knows about events as far back as Star Trek II. It can be considered a reboot, yes, but it is also considered a continuation of the lore, and alternate timeline where Vulcan has been destroyed.

Well, IMO that is - to a lesser extend - very similar to what happened to certain aspects of the Mass Effect trilogy. Of course it's all a progressing timeline, there is also some measure of continuety but there are aspects that have been changed so drastically that they almost seem like they'd be of a different timeline (e.g. the role and background of Cerberus in ME1 vs. 2 vs. 3 and other points I mentioned). Only in ME, there wasn't even time travel involved to hand wave the whole thing.

(I just want to add a disclaimer here, I am very glad that ME hasn't gone down the time travel/different dimensions path yet.)

Do you see the difference? Mass Effect, with save game import feature and all, was - from the very beginning - marketed as a cohesive trilogy and IMO at leastin that context it is not too much to ask for consistency of characters, circumstances and a narrative theme (although I admit the last is difficult to pinpoint).

Yes, I see the difference and always have. The post I was responding to was the assertion that "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 Trek works because they've moved the focus to an alternate timeline. Batman arguably works because Crisis on Infinite Earths and 52 worked to unite the various timelines and remove inconsistencies in characters' origins built up over years, sometimes decades, of writers and creative teams not caring about continuity.

My point exactly, in ME the things I described don't work because there is no or no good explanation for these changes.

But comics do build up the lore surrounding a character, and while comics and characters stay current to new generations of readers, they do not age at the same rate withint continuity. My example was Batman. He was an adult when the character first appeared in 1939, yet he remains a 40-some year-old guy. Each movie and adaptation changes Batman's origin just a little, and even over the course of 75 years, the comics continuity has changed. 

True but I fail to see the relevance for the ME trilogy.

If BW wants to make "The Incredible Mass Effect in the 12th Dimension" and that's a new RTS series with with the biotic god as protagonist, cell shading graphics and pink reapers, than I'd have no problem with that. Well, I'd probably still hate it and never buy it but at least I could just ignore it. Haveing the amount of inconsistencies (which I described in my first post here) within the first ME trilogy however was bit too much for me.

I guess my point was that creators should have some leeway to develop characters and settings to fit the current project. Like in Star Wars Episodes 1-3, where George Lucas depicted well-loved, well-known characters in ways fans of the original trilogy didn't like, such as C-3PO being built by Anakin Skywalker, or Boba Fett being the son of the genetic template of the clone troopers.

No, I didn't care for that treatment of the characters, nor did I care for Nathan Fillion's character in the final season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who became the season's Big Bad all of a sudden and was defeated just as quickly. But I disagree that episodic stories need to stick to specific lore or plot points. It might be better to do so, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary.

I am not saying that there should be no development in characters or lore. I am saying that there is balance if one intends to create a cohesive story arc (as was arguably the case for the ME trilogy). Where this balance is is subjective. This is why I was very careful to phrase all my arguments with consideration of that and added a lot of IMOs, "as far as I am concerned"s and "for me"s. I am very aware that other people see this differently,were completely fine with how things progressed in the ME trilogy and maybe would even have complained that things got boring if there had been less drastic changes. Maybe you are one of them, maybe not, I noticed you never stated your point of view concerning the ME trilogy directly (although I understand that your moderator status may prevent you you from doing so). All I am saying is that it was too much for me, that I think BW made mistakes in that regard and that I hope that they see it the same way (or maybe realize it when a sufficient amount of like-minded people point it out) and that they will learn from them.

By the way (and probably not surprisingly) , I agree with your remarks about Star Wars.

[Omega Torsk]

In response to the OP, I certainly hope so!

Armass81 wrote...

Mac Walters is the main writer again....

What does that tell you?

[Spam comment removed.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 11 juillet 2013 - 05:30 .

[grimkillah]

DominusVita wrote...

It depends on the subject for what's considered a mistake. To my knowledge, fans have had issues with things back in ME1 that didn't bother me at all, i.e. elevators, and yes, the mako(though I think that issue had more to do with level design that seemed to encourage wall-climbing on absurdly steep slopes).

I feel the removal of elevators and mako has made Mass Effect 2 & 3 smaller and less RPGish. The elevator sequence give you scale when travelling on the Citadel, now with its removal, Citadel always felt small and disconnected to me. And Mako, I don't understand why people complain about it, I never have any issue driving this vechicle on any planets. and the exploration is so perfect, it made the whole game monumental in scale. Now without the Mako element, Mass Effect felt small, any planetary mission is like a small map with few things to do, and no sense of space adventure and exploration that in my opinion key to scifi RPG games.

I will always consider ME1 a better game than ME2 & 3.

Modifié par grimkillah, 11 juillet 2013 - 05:07 .

[Ninja Stan]

MrFob wrote...

I am not saying that there should be no development in characters or lore. I am saying that there is balance if one intends to create a cohesive story arc (as was arguably the case for the ME trilogy). Where this balance is is subjective. This is why I was very careful to phrase all my arguments with consideration of that and added a lot of IMOs, "as far as I am concerned"s and "for me"s. I am very aware that other people see this differently,were completely fine with how things progressed in the ME trilogy and maybe would even have complained that things got boring if there had been less drastic changes. Maybe you are one of them, maybe not, I noticed you never stated your point of view concerning the ME trilogy directly (although I understand that your moderator status may prevent you you from doing so).

Mostly, I didn't want to start an argument aboutwho likes what, and which opinion is right or wrong. Also, at the time, I didn't want to be a beacon that folks on either side could point to to say, "See, even Stan likes that ending. It must be awesome!" or "Of course Stan would like that ending! He's a BioWarian!"

All I am saying is that it was too much for me, that I think BW made mistakes in that regard and that I hope that they see it the same way (or maybe realize it when a sufficient amount of like-minded people point it out) and that they will learn from them.

By the way (and probably not surprisingly) , I agree with your remarks about Star Wars.

Fair comment.

[LeEpicGingy]

Dragon Age: Inquisition shall be how I judge this question.

A few of the comments on this thread have been outright trollish, though. I get some of the people have legitimate beefs, provide why they didn't like it, and those reasons are completely valid. But some others have literally made laugh out loud.

Oh well, it's the internet after all.

[Mathias]

Can I be frank with you guys for a moment? I always am anyway, but i'm just gonna throw this out there. Bioware has indeed learned from their mistakes regarding the ending. I can't say it's a fact, but I feel confident enough in saying it's the closest thing to it. Why though?

Because simply put, the ending of ME3 was such a major PR disaster, that there is no way in f-ing way in hell that Bioware would ever want to go through that again. Let's keep in mind that it cost them time and money to fix the problems that ending created. Time and money people. I'm sure EA wasn't happy with them either.

Do you really think Bioware's writers will attempt to pull what Mac and Casey pulled during the production of this game? Do you think Mac and Casey themselves will attempt to pull what they pulled during the production of this game? No chance.

They  screwed up, and they know why they screwed up. With that said, I wouldn't worry too much about this type of thing happening again in the future.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 11 juillet 2013 - 11:18 .

[Ninja Stan]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Can I be frank with you guys for a moment? I always am anyway, but i'm just gonna throw this out there. Bioware has indeed learned from their mistakes regarding the ending. I can't say it's a fact, but I feel confident enough in saying it's the closest thing to it. Why though?

Because simply put, the ending of ME3 was such a major PR disaster, that there is no way in f-ing way in hell that Bioware would ever want to go through that again. Let's keep in mind that it cost them time and money to fix the problems that ending created. Time and money people. I'm sure EA wasn't happy with them either.

I'm going to disagree with you here, Mdoggy1214. A major online controversy is not a "major PR disaster." Lots of people freaking out over the ME3 ending doesn't mean the next ME game is in danger of not selling well. Heck, even thousands of people saying online that they'll "never buy another BioWare or EA game ever again" is not necessarily a death sentence for the next game. Remember that, good or bad, people talking about a game online and in forums represent a minority of the total players and buyers of that game, let alone the total potential market.

Yes, BioWare required resources to release the Extended Cut. but I think people are making more of the controversy than is warranted. The next game will still be made as best as BioWare can, according to what they think will be a good game, the game will still be marketed, and players will still have to make a decision: buy the game or not? The next ME game is no necessarily a "last chance, make-or-break the franchise" proposition for BioWare.

Do you really think Bioware's writers will attempt to pull what Mac and Casey pulled during the production of this game? Do you think Mac and Casey themselves will attempt to pull what they pulled during the production of this game? No chance.

If you take the internet freak-out out of the equation, all Casey and Mac did was make a decision that they believes was in the best interests of their game. Right or wrong, as executive producer and lead writer, it is their project (along with the other leads) and their decision to make. It doesn't matter if the decision was ultimately popular, right, or good--no one can predict how such things will be received by the consumer until after all is said and done--they made the decision and they may or may not make similar decisions in the future.

They  screwed up, and they know why they screwed up. With that said, I wouldn't worry too much about this type of thing happening again in the future.

They made a decision that was unpopular with fans. Disagreeing with or disliking that decision does not mean they were wrong in making that decision.

[Addictress]

I just wish the market would listen to me and me alone

[Armass81]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Can I be frank with you guys for a moment? I always am anyway, but i'm just gonna throw this out there. Bioware has indeed learned from their mistakes regarding the ending. I can't say it's a fact, but I feel confident enough in saying it's the closest thing to it. Why though?

Because simply put, the ending of ME3 was such a major PR disaster, that there is no way in f-ing way in hell that Bioware would ever want to go through that again. Let's keep in mind that it cost them time and money to fix the problems that ending created. Time and money people. I'm sure EA wasn't happy with them either.

I'm going to disagree with you here, Mdoggy1214. A major online controversy is not a "major PR disaster." Lots of people freaking out over the ME3 ending doesn't mean the next ME game is in danger of not selling well. Heck, even thousands of people saying online that they'll "never buy another BioWare or EA game ever again" is not necessarily a death sentence for the next game. Remember that, good or bad, people talking about a game online and in forums represent a minority of the total players and buyers of that game, let alone the total potential market.

Yes, BioWare required resources to release the Extended Cut. but I think people are making more of the controversy than is warranted. The next game will still be made as best as BioWare can, according to what they think will be a good game, the game will still be marketed, and players will still have to make a decision: buy the game or not? The next ME game is no necessarily a "last chance, make-or-break the franchise" proposition for BioWare.

Do you really think Bioware's writers will attempt to pull what Mac and Casey pulled during the production of this game? Do you think Mac and Casey themselves will attempt to pull what they pulled during the production of this game? No chance.

If you take the internet freak-out out of the equation, all Casey and Mac did was make a decision that they believes was in the best interests of their game. Right or wrong, as executive producer and lead writer, it is their project (along with the other leads) and their decision to make. It doesn't matter if the decision was ultimately popular, right, or good--no one can predict how such things will be received by the consumer until after all is said and done--they made the decision and they may or may not make similar decisions in the future.

They  screwed up, and they know why they screwed up. With that said, I wouldn't worry too much about this type of thing happening again in the future.

They made a decision that was unpopular with fans. Disagreeing with or disliking that decision does not mean they were wrong in making that decision.

If what was leaked in Penny Arcade was true and they shut themselves in an office to device that ending and didnt let anyone of the other writers to peer review it as Takyris(Weekes) posted that they didnt(deny it if you will, it just makes us doubt more), I cant see it as a right or smart decision. How is it in the bests intrests of the game to not let one of the most important points in the story to be peer reviewed, as all others likely were? Unless they knew it couldnt stand on its own, and were simply out of time...

Modifié par Armass81, 12 juillet 2013 - 02:24 .