149 réponses à ce sujet

[bloodmoon0011]

I dunno why there's so much ME2 hate. I loved it. Hell, when it comes to my favorite aspect of the series, ie, the characters, I think ME2 was the best, but that's purely subjective. I just loved how much it centered more on the characters. I did love that ME3 had the random conversations aboard the Normandy, though. It made them all feel really alive, you know?

[o Ventus]

scyphozoa wrote...

Legally, ME3 was fine. There are no legal grounds for misleading marketing. Within the game industry, you as a gamer can decide if you want to continue supporting a developer that you feel overpromised or mislead.

But lets be real, if you could sue game devs for overpromising or misleading, Peter Molyneux would be serving a life sentence.

Yes there are. Like, "your business can be terminated" kinds of legal grounds. Nothing ever happens because people never care to report it.

How often have you heard about Viacom beig sued because the Paranormal Activity trailers have all been comprised of footage that isn't actually in the theatrical release of the movie? Because every single one of them so far has been.

[o Ventus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

1.) People do not hold Mickey D's accountable for their Big Macs looking like crap.

It can look as sh**ty as it wants, but the Big Mac is at least comprised of what the nutritional information and advertising says it is. They don't advertise the Big Mac as being made from fine caviar, Gouda cheese, and chocolate sauce.

The devs straight up LIED prerelease.

[Sanunes]

o Ventus wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

Legally, ME3 was fine. There are no legal grounds for misleading marketing. Within the game industry, you as a gamer can decide if you want to continue supporting a developer that you feel overpromised or mislead.

But lets be real, if you could sue game devs for overpromising or misleading, Peter Molyneux would be serving a life sentence.

Yes there are. Like, "your business can be terminated" kinds of legal grounds. Nothing ever happens because people never care to report it.

How often have you heard about Viacom beig sued because the Paranormal Activity trailers have all been comprised of footage that isn't actually in the theatrical release of the movie? Because every single one of them so far has been.

As far as I know all the footage they used in the Mass Effect 3 trailers were accurate to the game.  What people here are complaining about would be if the Director of Paranormal Activity said there were going to be certain things done in the movie while it was shooting and when it was released it wasn't there.

Using the logic used against BioWare here, I think Warner Brothers and the Nolans are just as bad with Man of Steel then, for I went to it expecting to see a Superman movie, but what I got was a Batman movie, just with Batman wearing Superman underwear.

[o Ventus]

Sanunes wrote...

As far as I know all the footage they used in the Mass Effect 3 trailers were accurate to the game.  What people here are complaining about would be if the Director of Paranormal Activity said there were going to be certain things done in the movie while it was shooting and when it was released it wasn't there.

Using the logic used against BioWare here, I think Warner Brothers and the Nolans are just as bad with Man of Steel then, for I went to it expecting to see a Superman movie, but what I got was a Batman movie, just with Batman wearing Superman underwear.

I wasn't of the mindset that actual lies (as compiled into a list and linked earlier in the thread) were as severe as thematic consistency (which any rational person would expect when both franchises are produced and written by the same person).

If you're another one of those people criticizing Man of Steel because Superman was too moody (like Batman), then not only have you missed the point of this thread, but I think you missed the point of Man of Steel.

[Sanunes]

o Ventus wrote...

I wasn't of the mindset that actual lies (as compiled into a list and linked earlier in the thread) were as severe as thematic consistency (which any rational person would expect when both franchises are produced and written by the same person).

If you're another one of those people criticizing Man of Steel because Superman was too moody (like Batman), then not only have you missed the point of this thread, but I think you missed the point of Man of Steel.

I was just using it as an example with what I have been hearing elsewhere that the hype and previous knowledge influnced expectations.  There are areas where BioWare did make mistakes its just the accusations that they lied bugs me, for we don't know everything for all we know those comments accurately described the game (or their plans for the game) when they were made or elements of those lies can be noticed if you look for it, its just not the way the player wanted it to be.

[o Ventus]

Sanunes wrote...

I was just using it as an example with what I have been hearing elsewhere that the hype and previous knowledge influnced expectations.  There are areas where BioWare did make mistakes its just the accusations that they lied bugs me, for we don't know everything for all we know those comments accurately described the game (or their plans for the game) when they were made or elements of those lies can be noticed if you look for it, its just not the way the player wanted it to be.

Look at the very first Mac Walter quote from that link on the last page. It's dated Feb. 2012.

Unless they radically redesigned the entire rachni arc and finalized it after the game went gold, there's no rational way in hell that he was "accurately describing the game when they were made".

[David7204]

There's no doubt they said some incredibly foolish things pre-release, but I don't really know what anybody expects to happen.

It looks like they've learned their lesson, at least. Both Merizan and Priestly have posted about how they screwed up with that. And they're keeping their mouths shut about DA:I, no doubt to make absolutely sure they don't release information that turns out to be untrue.

Modifié par David7204, 13 juillet 2013 - 09:41 .

[rohanks]

leslie2233 wrote...

Bio should be responsible for some of the blame and the fans should be responsible for also hyping the game. Bioware obviously lied and made some bad statements but I can tell you that I took some of their statements at face value.

It is shocking to me that Casey made some of these statements because he has been with Bioware for a very long time and he is credited as the head of the mass effect franchise, you would think he knew more about his game.

I would add that hype and hyperbole was ferverently supplied by game reviews supplied by allegedly 'impartial journalists' within the games industry and within the mainstream press. And they were equally to blame if not more so for misleading potential buyers.  

I read ME3 game reviews from Gamespot to IGN and not once was the ending to ME3 ever mentioned or raised as a potential problem to long-term fans or casual players. ME3 has an 89% score on Metacritic for 23 reviews compared with a 4.8/4442 user rating. How is it possible for that consensus to be achieved? 

It can only be possible when that consensus is corrupted by journalists happy to accept and exchange favours with PR and Marketing arms of major software houses Fto ensure that the product is shipped and your money is collected. Regardless of how you feel about the quality of the product when you actually sit down to play it.

[Omega Torsk]

wolfhowwl wrote...

frostajulie wrote...

I hold to the first school of thought and bioware blatantly violated it with ME3. There used to be a thread which was locked that had every lie with quotes and links all in one spot listed nicely for the curious to see. Many people say they were not lies it was hype

I'm just an ordinary person but if you say something knowing it is not true that's what I would call a lie.
Lies were told and shame on them. But that ship has sailed the horse beaten to death and EA refunded me $30 so I'm good even though I am disappointed in the game.

I think this is the thread you were thinking of.

http://social.biowar...ndex/10204263/1

I love that thread. Anybody scratching their heads and wondering why most of the fans were so let down by the inital endings need only to read that thread.

Also, that "A, B, and C" comment from the lips of Hudson himself was uttered a MONTH prior to release. No matter how you shake it, we were trolled.

I also love the reason given for why the thread was locked down;

"They are not lies. This thread is closed."



Well, when you put it like that...

[chemiclord]

Because many of those statements require some mental gymnastics to turn them into lies. You have to interpret them a specific way when there are other valid interpretations.

Take the "No ABC" ending "promise." Actually READ the entire statement within the context of the question. The interpretation I got from it was Hudson saying effectively, "We don't want an ending that can be summed up as 'I chose A" or 'I chose B' or 'I chose C.' We want a lot of variables within the ending so that there are many possibilities."

With that interpretation, he's not promising "No ABC" at all. And with that interpretation, it wouldn't be a lie in the slightest (though there is room to argue just how effective that attempt was). You kinda have to go LOOKING for a lie in his statement to actually find one... and a lot of the other "lies" attributed to Bioware require similar effort.

Especially in a court of law (even for civil infractions) if you have to dig that way to parse out a "lie", you're going to have a REALLY hard time convincing the court of your case.

That's not to say ALL of them are that way... some of them require similar effort to demonstrate that Bioware WASN'T misleading (like how some fans here were able to "justify" statements on the Rachni decision).

Modifié par chemiclord, 13 juillet 2013 - 07:54 .

[Ninja Stan]

rohanks wrote...

I would add that hype and hyperbole was ferverently supplied by game reviews supplied by allegedly 'impartial journalists' within the games industry and within the mainstream press. And they were equally to blame if not more so for misleading potential buyers.  

I read ME3 game reviews from Gamespot to IGN and not once was the ending to ME3 ever mentioned or raised as a potential problem to long-term fans or casual players. ME3 has an 89% score on Metacritic for 23 reviews compared with a 4.8/4442 user rating. How is it possible for that consensus to be achieved? 

It can only be possible when that consensus is corrupted by journalists happy to accept and exchange favours with PR and Marketing arms of major software houses Fto ensure that the product is shipped and your money is collected. Regardless of how you feel about the quality of the product when you actually sit down to play it.

It can also be possible the consensus was achieved by game journalists not being nearly as emotionally invested in the game or the franchise as long-time fans. They rate the game according to their publications' editorial guidelines. In that, they are accountable to the publications that hire them, and, to a lesser extent, the readership of that publication.

Fans are under no such restrictions. They can rant and rave about anything and everything, rate the game however they like, with no repercussions, accountability, or even any identifying information; they can rate the game anonymously. No one is looking to "irategamer37264" for advice on what game to buy, and no group of people see "irategamer37264" (or, indeed, his predecessor "irategamer37263") as authorities on games, professional reviewers, or even a flesh-and-blood individual who has a job and family and perhaps a spouse and bills and a car who likes a glass of wine with dinner. No, all people see is a username and a review. And based on some of those reviews, one might think that some games are the worst things humanity has ever been exposed to, or that the game is responsible for epidemics of disease, puppy kicking, and child abandonment, or that the game turned a healthy millionaire into a leprotic pauper.

The conspiracy theory of "all game publications are in the pocket of developers and publishers" is not just unreasonable, it's logistically impossible. It makes the game industry look like a criminal racket. Look at all the game publications out there and all the publishers out there. Each publisher wants a good review, and each publication wants to keep publishers advetising. So how does it actually work? EA pays GameReviewSiteX for a good review of Game A, but it's being released at the same time as Activision's Game B, so Activision has also paid for a good review. Is the final rating of the game based on who paid more or who pays more often? Is the publication in danger of losing both advertisers because they each know the other has paid for a good review? How does any game publication ever lose money or shut down, if they're raking in all this phat advertising lewt? And if all this quid pro quo is happening all the time, to all games and all publishers, how do major releases ever get bad or even mediocre reviews? And how do games ever make money, if the marketing budget for every game is always being spent on "bribes" to all the major game publications (and every major publication that reviews games) in every country? That'd get ridiculous!

I get that some folks were disappointed by ME3's ending. I get that some people had their hearts set on a certain kind of game that they didn't find in ME3. I even get that some might feel betrayed by a developer they love so much releasing a game that didn't seem to live up to its promises. I get that. Honestly, I do. I felt similarly when I went to see Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III in the cinema. (Yes, I saw all three in first-run theatres. Please don't hurt my family.) But I see a big difference between "I am so disappointed in this company" or "I am really disappointed by this product" and "this company lied to me!" The former puts the onus of purchase and reaction on you the consumer, while the latter implies the consumer has no control over his own behaviour or opinions.

The preceding statement was a response to rohanks' post.

Much of the discussion in this thread has been civil and reasonable, and for that I thank you. It makes my job as Moderator much easier when I see that community members can discuss, debate, and disagree without violating the Site Rules or engaging in childish tantrums. I would prefer to see the line of conversation stick to the "factual information that turned out to be demonstrably false" side of things rather than the "I interpreted this statement in way that caused me disappointment" side. But as long as you keep it civil and respectful, it's all right.

Thanks, everyone.

[chemiclord]

Now, with all that said (and I don't disagree with you here, Stan)...

What sort of connections SHOULD happen in a customer's mind when they see IGN employees getting VA roles in a game the publication is supposedly impartially reviewing?

Yes... there IS a perfectly genteel explanation (Chobot's been a huge fan of the series, she wasn't involved at all in the review of ME3), but surely you can understand some degree of raised eyebrows and suspicion?

[David7204]

I can understand suspicion that the role was a cheap ploy to grab attention at the expense of better talent and hence the quality of the game. But calling it a bribe in exchange for a good score from IGN is just stupid.

Modifié par David7204, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:20 .

[chemiclord]

The greater point is that the line between video game publishers/developers and the media that covers it is FAR more blurry than the lines between the media and other forms of entertainment. Surely some degree of suspicion is reasonable to expect.

Modifié par chemiclord, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:25 .

[David7204]

No, I don't really think it is. No reasonable person could look at the scores and articles of reviewers like Game Informer, Rock Paper Shotgun, and PC Gamer and conclude that big publishers buy good ratings off of them.

These publishers are competitors, and buying scores is surely illegal. If it was so obvious that a bunch of nobodies on the internet have figured it out, don't you think that they would have exposed each other by this point?

I also really don't see how there's a difference between video games and other mediums. Aside from video games possibly having a bigger interest in general than other mediums.

Modifié par David7204, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:37 .

[chemiclord]

I'll tell you what the difference is:

If a movie reviewer takes a role in a movie... guess what happens to his/her reviewer job? S/He loses it. It's a conflict of interest. Same with a TV reviewer taking a walk-on role in a TV show.

Had Jessica Chobot been in ANY other entertainment medium, she'd be looking for work the moment that story broke.  Those are grounds for IMMEDIATE termination, and it's written into the contracts of damn near every media member.  You simply are NOT permitted to perform in the media that you are hired to cover.  Except in video games, where it's not inherently prohibited.

Modifié par chemiclord, 14 juillet 2013 - 12:00 .

[David7204]

Do you have a single example of that happening? Or evidence suggesting that's the case?

Also, I googled Roger Ebert, probably one of the best known film critics. And guess what's on his Wikipedia page? A list of appearences in TV and film. Looks to me like over a half-dozen entries. So what does that say?

Modifié par David7204, 14 juillet 2013 - 12:37 .

[chemiclord]

I should clarify... because I should have said reviewing the movie or film they were appearing in. I do apologize for the oversight. That was my fault.

And yes, I do understand that Chobot did not have anything to do with the actual review of ME3.

As for actual examples, it's a little tricky to outright PROVE such claims, because it's something that publications will try to avoid admitting to. I do know in my initial field of sportswriting, this is the case, at least.

One Fox Sports Detroit anchor was recently released, conveniently after he had several pictures of him seen celebrating with the team following a league championship (that was literally all he did, although FSD cited that he had decided to "pursue other opportunities in the field"). It's just something that the station (and most publications) seek to avoid, nor do they eagerly admit to when it happens.

So yes, I do believe had it occurred in anywhere other than video games, Chobot would be out of a job right now... simply if for no reason than to avoid even the implication of impropriety.  Video game media is very much the exception to that general rule rather than the rule.

Modifié par chemiclord, 14 juillet 2013 - 12:52 .

[Remix-General Aetius]

lol @ NinjaStan "It makes the game industry look like a criminal racket"

wasn't it proved a while back that several game-studio employees posed as fake reviewers on IGN-like sites? heh I'm not a legal expert but isn't that fraud-like? if I recall correctly they were Bioware employees, no? and your EA bosses certainly have criminal business ethics.

"I get that some folks were disappointed by ME3's ending"

lol "some"........yeeeeeeee no.

Modifié par TheGarden2010, 14 juillet 2013 - 02:21 .

[Zekka]

rohanks wrote...

leslie2233 wrote...

Bio should be responsible for some of the blame and the fans should be responsible for also hyping the game. Bioware obviously lied and made some bad statements but I can tell you that I took some of their statements at face value.

It is shocking to me that Casey made some of these statements because he has been with Bioware for a very long time and he is credited as the head of the mass effect franchise, you would think he knew more about his game.

I would add that hype and hyperbole was ferverently supplied by game reviews supplied by allegedly 'impartial journalists' within the games industry and within the mainstream press. And they were equally to blame if not more so for misleading potential buyers.  

I read ME3 game reviews from Gamespot to IGN and not once was the ending to ME3 ever mentioned or raised as a potential problem to long-term fans or casual players. ME3 has an 89% score on Metacritic for 23 reviews compared with a 4.8/4442 user rating. How is it possible for that consensus to be achieved? 

It can only be possible when that consensus is corrupted by journalists happy to accept and exchange favours with PR and Marketing arms of major software houses Fto ensure that the product is shipped and your money is collected. Regardless of how you feel about the quality of the product when you actually sit down to play it.

Some Journalists rated Mass Effect 3 so high it made me believe it was one of the best games ever. IGN gave it a 9.5, that means the game is near perfect and from what i played the game was not near perfect.  Critics criticized almost everything about Dragon Age 2 but they just handwaved Mass Effect 3's problems.

The journalists didn't talk much about the story, ending, horrible journal system, side quests or RPG elements they went straight to the gameplay and praised it. They hyped the game and kept hyping it, calling it the best game of 2012 . I was baffled after playing the game because it just wasn't that good.

[Ninja Stan]

TheGarden2010 wrote...

lol @ NinjaStan "It makes the game industry look like a criminal racket"

wasn't it proved a while back that several game-studio employees posed as fake reviewers on IGN-like sites? heh I'm not a legal expert but isn't that fraud-like? if I recall correctly they were Bioware employees, no?

No, it wasn't proven that "several game-studio employees posed as fake reviewers on IGN-like sites." A BioWare employee used a personal account to rate a BioWare game, pretty highly, actually. Regardless of how genuine his review was, the internet called shenanigans on it.

and your EA bosses certainly have criminal business ethics.

If you want a legitimate discussion, TheGarden2010, then please stop with the sensationalist hyperbole. If you persist in making such accusations and other hyperbolic comments, I will stop responding. Such nonsense doesn't advance the discussion.

"I get that some folks were disappointed by ME3's ending"

lol "some"........yeeeeeeee no.

How about "many"? There's only so far I can stretch what I perceive to be reality.

[Ninja Stan]

leslie2233 wrote...

Some Journalists rated Mass Effect 3 so high it made me believe it was one of the best games ever. IGN gave it a 9.5, that means the game is near perfect and from what i played the game was not near perfect.  Critics criticized almost everything about Dragon Age 2 but they just handwaved Mass Effect 3's problems.

The journalists didn't talk much about the story, ending, horrible journal system, side quests or RPG elements they went straight to the gameplay and praised it. They hyped the game and kept hyping it, calling it the best game of 2012 . I was baffled after playing the game because it just wasn't that good.

I think game reviewers are subjective, just like the rest of us, but they have a lot more experience in communicating what's good and what's not about the games they play. Because of the nature of their jobs, they can rarely afford to be as intimately connected to their games as you or I are. And don't misunderstand, while a 9.5 or 10 are very high scores, not everyone considers a 10 rating to be a perfect game. A 10 might mean it's one of the best representations of its genre, or it does everything it sets out to do, or it's among the funnest games out there, or it's the best this year, or it's completely flawless, or it gave the reviewer a stellar game experience despite any flaws, or it's an indication of how much of a "must buy" it is, or a measure of how much the reviewer wants to play it again. A publication might use ratings comparatively, meaning a 9 in one game means the same as a 9 in another, or the publication might use it completely subjectively, meaning the game is only compared to itself and could equal another game's 10 or 8.

Some publications use a 4- or 5-point rating system, some a 10-point scale, some a percentage, and some use letter grades. Aggregators like Metacritic translate those scores into its own percentage scale in order to provide an aggregate score.

The point is: how do you know that your 10-point scale means the same as a reviewer's 10-point scale? Or that they are as critical or forgiving of the same things as you are?

Reviews should be used as guidelines to inform one's own decisions, not as measures of objective quality. Just as examples, despite its stellar ratings, I can't play Skyrim. I just don't like that kind of game, and no number of perfect review scores can influence me that much. On the other hand, Beyond Good and Evil got great reviews but didn't sell well. I loved it! And really, if you end up liking the game, does it matter how well it scores or what other people think of it?

[Iakus]

Ninja Stan wrote...

How about "many"? There's only so far I can stretch what I perceive to be reality.

Do you honestly think "many" is a stretch?

[Sanunes]

iakus wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

How about "many"? There's only so far I can stretch what I perceive to be reality.

Do you honestly think "many" is a stretch?

If you want to say "many of the BSN posts", its not that much of a stretch.  The people that haven't posted about how they liked or disliked the ending many could be a stretch.