149 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

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?

Yeah. It did kind of cause the largest uproar over a video game. And not the kind of uproar where uber-right wing nutjobs say that it is a haven of sin and sodomy and violence and sex and that it teaches our kids to worship Satan.

I'm talking the normal, everyday gamer getting upset.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 14 juillet 2013 - 04:43 .

[AtreiyaN7]

The idea that BioWare should be held responsible for some people having unrealistic expectations about both the level of impact their choices would have on the third game and the idea that they would somehow get personally tailored dream endings strikes me as being a bit silly.

[Sanunes]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

The idea that BioWare should be held responsible for some people having unrealistic expectations about both the level of impact their choices would have on the third game and the idea that they would somehow get personally tailored dream endings strikes me as being a bit silly.

There were some comments made by developers that if they weren't made I don't think the expectations wouldn't have been made as high and I think BioWare has learned from that for they are barely talking about Dragon Age: Inquisition and taken as show and don't tell policy with it, which to me is a very good thing.  At the same time people seem to be annoyed at the graphical changes of their favorite characters in the Dragon Age: Inquisition E3 preview that prove to me no matter what BioWare does there are always going to be people upset about how they feel the company is failing to meet their personal standards.

[Nightwriter]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

The idea that BioWare should be held responsible for some people having unrealistic expectations about both the level of impact their choices would have on the third game and the idea that they would somehow get personally tailored dream endings strikes me as being a bit silly.

That'd be the second school of thought, then.

You are behind the times. I thought we had well enough established that responsibility is on both the one promising the moon and the one who actually believed the moon would be delivered.

Taking into account, of course, that some of the misleading dev quotes promised the moon rather more than the others. I don't think all the promises were too extravagant for credulity. But some of them definitely were.

The dev comments about decision impact, experience customization/variation, and player co-writing were probably among the worst in that regard.

I think a lot of the words that came out of Casey's mouth encouraged unrealistic expectations about choice consequence and player power. Fans should have realized these expectations were unrealistic, yes -- playing ME2, at least, should have made them skeptical that there would be no more dropped choices or minimized decision impacts -- but there is no need for BioWare to add fuel to the fire. Many fans are already susceptible to overestimating the effects of game choices, partly because Mass Effect habitually gives you choices that seem like they should have large significant consequences, partly because fans often expect the same level of choice impact in a trilogy that a single self-contained game can deliver, and partly because of simple subconscious rationales like "if it doesn't really change anything, why is the choice there?"

This level of expectation is probably something that needs to be discouraged, not encouraged.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 15 juillet 2013 - 09:04 .

[Bebuse]

Responsible? I have no idea how - if every case of misleading advertising (or downright lies) led to a company being responsible somehow, I think capitalism would collapse in a day. All we can do is vote with our wallets, which should be pain enough.

But still... I have to be honest: I believed I was being reasonable in my expectations for the ME endings. I was under no illusions that huge swathes of choices would be handwaved away: it is simply not possible that every one could be taken into consideration; it would lead to thousands of possible permutations that could not be reasonably taken into account. But I hoped they could at very least merge a few of the big ones (rachni, Council, Collector Base, squad members still alive) into a series of resolutions that left the player emotionally satisfied. But I got a game that railroaded me against most of what I'd done to date (not all though - Tuchanka was an excellent example of how to do it RIGHT) and left me with a single, awfully designed ending that disregarded everything I did, broke every promise made prior to release and left me, quite literally, distraught for longer than I thought a piece of fiction ever could.

Any Bioware team member who knew about what the player was getting then said something like:

"It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C"

or

"The presence of the Rachni has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."

Was lying. Not misleading, not using "marketing speak" to overstate a small thing. Lying, for the purpose of selling their product.

Like I said: responsible? I have no idea how this could work legally. But responsibility for those falsehoods is with Bioware and the people who spoke them, and I will treat them accordingly for those lies in the future, with what little power I have: my own spending power. I urge everybody who feels strongly to do the same.

[Aesandil]

Sure, they outright lied about what the final product would include. Was it a case of spewing unfounded fantasies in various interviews just because they could, honestly believing in their own unrealistic expectations, or purposefully misleading people - that's hard to say.

Yet I certainly haven't heard of any legal case where false advertising and broken promises would be punished. So holding them responsible? Tough. You can however shun them all you like, express your opinion, and, as always, vote with your money.

[_aLucidMind_]

I know I certainly will be holding them responsible for their blatant lying prior to release and disdainful and spiteful BioWare and their PR were, not to mention the very obvious payoffs they gave IGN to bash everyone to get the heat off themselves. They are talented but are untrustworthy, and I now will have my eyes on them in more ways than one.

[The PC Patriot]

To me one of the most blatant misleading bits of marketing was this Mass Effect 3 video :-



It is an official Bioware video about "interactive story telling".  It covers the mission on Thessia where you talk with that Assari Captain.  The video heavily hints that how you talk to the Captain has consequences.  In the end it is irrelevant what you say to the Captain it plays out EXACTLY the same way .  To me that isn't "marketing" that is blatantly misleading.

Do I think Bioware should be held responsible ?  That is up to each consumer.  I know I will be holding them to account and will not pay another damn penny for any more Mass Effect.  Not just because of they way they lied and mislead people with the propaganda for ME 3 but also because I no longer trust them to produce a compelling competent product.

[Modius Prime]

Yes, they should. The game was hyped up to be something that it clearly wasn't and the Better Business Bureau agrees. A lot of what was advertised for the game was out-right false, and consumers were mislead. I agree that most of the game was not falsely advertised, but the ending - the whole point of the journey - was complete false compared to what was said by both Walters and Hudson. You have to buy the game, or spoil it for yourself, to get to the major point where the game was misleading; I think this is the biggest reason why it was wrong. People spent up to $100 to get an ending that they were lead to believe. It's not about whether the ending was good or bad - that's all perspective. It's about whether the game was advertised correctly, which it was not. This is why some people are complaining, and they as consumers had every right to complain. Ex: I get a weight loss product that is supposed to make me lose weight in the end, but I don't lose weight. In ME3 perspective, I buy the game but I don't get the ending I was promised. Both are accountable.

[Sanunes]

Modius Prime wrote...

Yes, they should. The game was hyped up to be something that it clearly wasn't and the Better Business Bureau agrees. A lot of what was advertised for the game was out-right false, and consumers were mislead. I agree that most of the game was not falsely advertised, but the ending - the whole point of the journey - was complete false compared to what was said by both Walters and Hudson. You have to buy the game, or spoil it for yourself, to get to the major point where the game was misleading; I think this is the biggest reason why it was wrong. People spent up to $100 to get an ending that they were lead to believe. It's not about whether the ending was good or bad - that's all perspective. It's about whether the game was advertised correctly, which it was not. This is why some people are complaining, and they as consumers had every right to complain. Ex: I get a weight loss product that is supposed to make me lose weight in the end, but I don't lose weight. In ME3 perspective, I buy the game but I don't get the ending I was promised. Both are accountable.

The BBB didn't say it was misleading a blog article from one of their employees said that, its cutting a fine line, but if the BBB felt that way there would have been more then just the one blog article.  The way I take most blog articles is they are nothing more then the opinion pages in a newpaper, not that they represent the organization as a whole.

[FlamingBoy]

Yes they should have

[tanisha__unknown]

@Ninja Stan

around 70.000 can be confirmed. That's roughly the amount of people who voted that the ending sucked in a poll here on forums and (admmitedly I am not a member) I was given to understand that there is a facebook group which has a similar title and roughly the same amount of members. The rest is estimates.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as fake advertisement go: I actually do see a huge discrepancy between what was promised before and what the game actually was and a lot of statements turned out to b wrong. So let's accept the premise that BW/EA are guilty of false advertisement for the moment. Then you usually ask about repercussions. What would be apprpriate in this case?

Some kind of compensation who felt betrayed and hurt by the endings? I was deeply disappointed by the original endings, which initially caused me a a-great-series-flushed-down-the-toilet-within-10-minutes-feeling, and I think that would be exaggerated. One might argue that dissatisfied customers would be eligible for a refund in this case, as far as I know, at least Amazon already proved to be very generous in this respect and actually took the game back. To my knowledge, this has been a generosity of the trader, as far as I know, no court ever stated that customers who were dissatisfied with the ending actually were entitled to a refund.

Modifié par Jinx1720, 25 juillet 2013 - 09:22 .

[Sanunes]

Jinx1720 wrote...

@Ninja Stan

around 70.000 can be confirmed. That's roughly the amount of people who voted that the ending sucked in a poll here on forums and (admmitedly I am not a member) I was given to understand that there is a facebook group which has a similar title and roughly the same amount of members. The rest is estimates.

The problem I have with those polls is nothing stopped people from signing up multiple times to keep voting, to make a false claim.

As far as fake advertisement go: I actually do see a huge discrepancy between what was promised before and what the game actually was and a lot of statements turned out to b wrong. So let's accept the premise that BW/EA are guilty of false advertisement for the moment. Then you usually ask about repercussions. What would be apprpriate in this case?

Some kind of compensation who felt betrayed and hurt by the endings? I was deeply disappointed by the original endings, which initially caused me a a-great-series-flushed-down-the-toilet-within-10-minutes-feeling, and I think that would be exaggerated. One might argue that dissatisfied customers would be eligible for a refund in this case, as far as I know, at least Amazon already proved to be very generous in this respect and actually took the game back. To my knowledge, this has been a generosity of the trader, as far as I know, no court ever stated that customers who were dissatisfied with the ending actually were entitled to a refund.

The Extended Cut is the compensation, they didn't have to do that at all and yes people still don't like it, but it was BioWare's attempt at a compromise.

[Iakus]

Sanunes wrote...
The Extended Cut is the compensation, they didn't have to do that at all and yes people still don't like it, but it was BioWare's attempt at a compromise.

I really don't see a whole lot of compromise.  Far more "my way or the highway"

I'd go so far as to suggest CItadel was closer to a compromise than EC.  THough not by much.

Modifié par iakus, 26 juillet 2013 - 05:46 .

[Plaintiff]

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Fraudulent marketing can only be judged on a case-by-case basis.

There is an unspoken contract of sorts between consumer and advertiser. Consumers agree to overlook the most egregious lies ("This paper towel can soak up a bathful of liquid!"), and advertisers agree to make sure the product is still pretty decent.

A certain degree of exaggeration exists in all marketing, some of it is deliberate and some of it is a natural byproduct of being proud and excited about the thing you're selling. In the case of Mass Effect 3, I think it falls into the latter category. The developers are not malicious. If they were, they would've told all the people demanding an overhauled ending to go **** themselves. Instead, they reworked it (within reason), and released the content for free. I would've charged for it, personally. Making a game, even a terrible one (which Mass Effect 3 is not) is not easy in the least, and developers are entitled to charge for any extra work they do.

In any case, game quality is totally subjective. Accusing developers of false advertising because you personally didn't like the product is just flat-out moronic. Not liking certain plot devices, or feeling that characters were "butchered", is not a legitimate complaint. You have to be able to objectively prove that the game does not work as advertised.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 juillet 2013 - 06:16 .

[David7204]

Despite what people may want to think, DLC is not a magic paintbrush that can be used to fix any and all problems with a story and game.

[Ajensis]

Plaintiff wrote...
(...)
In any case, game quality is totally subjective. Accusing developers of false advertising because you personally didn't like the product is just flat-out moronic. Not liking certain plot devices, or feeling that characters were "butchered", is not a legitimate complaint. You have to be able to objectively prove that the game does not work as advertised.

My problem with this line of thinking is that it makes it far too easy to devalue any and all opinions. It's commonly accepted that The Room is a terrible movie, and, I don't know, American Beauty is a great one. You can talk about editing and cinematography and this and that, but ultimately, how can you "objectively prove it" beyond that?
The ending of Mass Effect 3 has been analysed thoroughly and not many (if any) have praised it for its literary qualities. I think it's a boring world where none of that matters because 'game quality is totally subjective'. I disagree. It's intangible at best, but I believe it's possible to conclude that x is good and y is subpar. Then you just have to accept that in many cases, a few will view it differently, which is perfectly alright. Tastes differ. But there should exist some kind of idea of what is a qualitative product and what isn't. Not necessarily based on popular opinion, though... but that's where it gets tricky.

Besides, I don't see anyone talking about false advertising simply because they didn't like the game, but because of statements made by the developers that they feel were misleading or downright untrue.

[Plaintiff]

Ajensis wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
(...)
In any case, game quality is totally subjective. Accusing developers of false advertising because you personally didn't like the product is just flat-out moronic. Not liking certain plot devices, or feeling that characters were "butchered", is not a legitimate complaint. You have to be able to objectively prove that the game does not work as advertised.

My problem with this line of thinking is that it makes it far too easy to devalue any and all opinions. It's commonly accepted that The Room is a terrible movie, and, I don't know, American Beauty is a great one. You can talk about editing and cinematography and this and that, but ultimately, how can you "objectively prove it" beyond that?
The ending of Mass Effect 3 has been analysed thoroughly and not many (if any) have praised it for its literary qualities. I think it's a boring world where none of that matters because 'game quality is totally subjective'. I disagree. It's intangible at best, but I believe it's possible to conclude that x is good and y is subpar. Then you just have to accept that in many cases, a few will view it differently, which is perfectly alright. Tastes differ. But there should exist some kind of idea of what is a qualitative product and what isn't. Not necessarily based on popular opinion, though... but that's where it gets tricky.

Besides, I don't see anyone talking about false advertising simply because they didn't like the game, but because of statements made by the developers that they feel were misleading or downright untrue.

Opinion being subjective is not the same as opinion being invalid. But no opinion should be regarded as gospel.

I have problems with ME3's ending (not the same as many other people have, because I came to the game late and only saw the extended cut ending), but to claim that ME3 broke some kind of law based on that, or demand that the developers do extra work to satisfy me, or be fired, or whatever, is stupid, and exactly the sort of childish, grossly entitled behaviour that makes people think the gaming community is populated entirely by basement-dwelling, cheetos-gorging man-children.

[Praetor Knight]

Well, I skimmed this thread a bit, but I can't get my mind off of how we can change the forum language to 1337, as clicking on that drop down arrow to our bottom right, can allow us.

Excuse me, time to test.

[Arcian]

David7204 wrote...

Despite what people may want to think, DLC is not a magic paintbrush that can be used to fix any and all problems with a story and game.

Despite what you may think, you don't actually know anything about developing games or DLCs.

[David7204]

Am I wrong, Arcian?

Is DLC a magic paintbrush?

[Arcian]

David7204 wrote...

Am I wrong, Arcian?

Is DLC a magic paintbrush?

In the right hands, yes, it is.

[David7204]

Is it? Interesting. Which game was it that had all of it's problems, both gameplay and story, fixed by DLC again?

Modifié par David7204, 26 juillet 2013 - 11:14 .

[Ajensis]

Plaintiff wrote...
Opinion being subjective is not the same as opinion being invalid. But no opinion should be regarded as gospel.

But if you ask for concrete "proof" (in whatever form that would come in) before something can be deemed of a certain quality, opinions are as good as invalid anyway. The Room might be as good a movie as American Beauty, because general opinions are just subjective and not proof of what quality the two movies possess.
I agree about no opinions being considered gospel, though

I have problems with ME3's ending (not the same as many other people have, because I came to the game late and only saw the extended cut ending), but to claim that ME3 broke some kind of law based on that, or demand that the developers do extra work to satisfy me, or be fired, or whatever, is stupid, and exactly the sort of childish, grossly entitled behaviour that makes people think the gaming community is populated entirely by basement-dwelling, cheetos-gorging man-children.

I'm not trying to say that ME3's ending broke any kind of law (except a metaphorical one, perhaps). I just think it's reasonable to conclude that based on the fan reaction and the many analyses highlighting various flaws (and the lack of analyses doing the opposite), the ending of this game wasn't good.
And I don't support the people who demanded a better ending. I'm not sure why you bring that up. But I agree that we cannot demand anything - it's the sole reason I never joined the Retake movement, for instance -, and that personal threats (like being fired or worse) are out of line and wrong. But that's kind of irrelevant here.