407 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

o Ventus wrote...

I don't see how wanting something to be polarizing could ever be a good thing.

Why is intentionally alienating part of your fanbase a positive thing?

Depends on the economics. In cable TV you want preference intensity rather than broad likability.

But the game market doesn't work that way.

[frostajulie]

StreetMagic wrote...

Reminds me of a kid who wipes out on his bike and gets up... "I meant to do that."

LOL!  So TRUE!

[Argolas]

What's new about that? If they put any thought into the ending at all, it's clear that they meant to provoke controversy. I am not quite sure that this makes the game less forgettable though. The discussions will cool down eventually, and what happens after that? After they feel that everything that needs to be said was said already (and I think we passed this point a while ago), what then? Will they remember and enjoy coming back to the game once in a while? Or will they rather leave the confusion behind and move on after they found out there is no real answer?

[3DandBeyond]

Element Engine wrote...

Hudson's gotten a lot of undeserved heat. Whether you liked the ending to ME3 or not, the trilogy wouldn't be what it is without him. It's a lot like the George Lucas situation. "LUCAS RUINED STAR WARS!" Yeah, he also created it. So STFU.

People are too quick to knock others down.

Undeserved heat is when you don't ever tell people you will do something and you get crapped on for not doing it.  Deserved heat is when you repeatedly proclaim as loudly as possible that you will do something and say it in order to get people to buy your product, but then don't do it, and basically tell fans they were wrong because you never said it in the first place.  And it's when you specifically go out of your way to hype a product to get sales and out and out "mislead" loyal fans as to what will and will not be in your product and all of that is shown to be untrue.  And yet you still insist it is the fans that have the problem and not you, even when your own words say otherwise.

You're acting as if BW isn't a business.  And so are a lot of other people.  If Apple came out and said the iPad would slice your bread, drive your car, and bathe your baby, and it didn't do that no one would see this as making any sense, so they wouldn't buy it.  But if Apple says the iPhone will make phone calls, will connect to the internet, and it doesn't do those things, people would say customers have a valid complaint.  And consumers would not be called whiners or be told they just didn't understand what the iPhone was supposed to do.

Hudson deserves the heat for what he said and did and then said later on, and all the things, all the promises he made in order to guarantee pre-orders for ME3.  Games live and die based upon pre-orders which now hinge upon hype.  And saying that no one should believe hype means that devs shouldn't be asked to keep their promises even if it involves hype.

He said we'd get a vast variety of endings so it would be like no two people were playing the same game.  No ABC choices.  All our questions would be answered.  The endings of ME3 could be more wide open than ME2's or 1's because no game would come after so there could be a bigger variety.  Our choices from all 3 games would matter-this is an out and out falsity.  You don't even have to play 1 or 2 or most of 3 to get the same endings as someone who does play them to completion. 

There's so much that he said would and wouldn't be in the ending that one must wonder why he said anything at all.  Why did he choose to even go there?  No one forced him to even talk about it.  He could have chosen to be mysterious about it and said the endings would have variety but he'd leave it to players to experience, but HE CHOSE to repeatedly discuss them and then to uh, "mislead" everyone as to what they would be.  The heat is deserved and well-earned.  And this from a guy who professed he cared about the story, described how awesome the character of Shepard was and where the name came from with a kind of reverance.  The name of someone he saw as a hero, Alan Shepard the astronaut, and the eternal view of a Shepherd as being a caretaker.  Yes, you do leave someone like that as a torso in a pile of rubble at best.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 05 août 2013 - 06:20 .

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I don't see how wanting something to be polarizing could ever be a good thing.

Why is intentionally alienating part of your fanbase a positive thing?

Depends on the economics. In cable TV you want preference intensity rather than broad likability.

But the game market doesn't work that way.

This is partly true.  In gaming the expectation is often a win.  In games with divergent endings, the expectation is more about the different wins that can be accomplished.  In some rarer games say like Bioshock Infinite, the win isn't necessarily one for the person you think at first should win.

Cable tv is about the conflict and controversy because shows they feature are not finished not at an end.  They must continue the intensity, the pace, and the controversy in order to get the interest of an ADD audience.  People have almost too many choices so everything is geared at teasing the dog with the treat.  News does this and has supplanted news with commentary and sound bites.  If it bleeds, it leads.  But make no mistake the bottom line is the bottom line and likability is key.  Even if it's like someone wanting to watch a train wreck.  It may end up being more about them wanting people to talk about what happened, but if they talk about it and tune it out, that's not working.  People watch Honey Boo Boo because well some of it is abhorrent but they also do like something about it.  Even if it appeals to a more prurient interest, it is appealing to some.

But gaming takes its cue from other competitive or sports like ventures.  They are more object oriented.  You may be ok with playing tennis and it ending in a tie, but that's not how it's usually done.  Even in friendly games people do play to win.  In video games we do the same.  We can compete against ourselves or our own best score or kill an enemy or in PvP win matches and so on, but the idea is winning is the goal.  And that applies to story games as well.  We're hard-wired to either want the hero to win or to lose for a good reason.  It's why blockbuster movies don't all end in ambiguity or in the hero's death all the time-most end with a clear understanding of what has happened and sometimes with a kiss.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 05 août 2013 - 06:35 .

[LinksOcarina]

AresKeith wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

LoU and Infinite where able to get the players talking without having a ending that was bs. Just saying Casey.

Depends on who you talk to about Infinite.

And with LoU 

not really much of a change is it?

Last of Us had such a telegraphed ending it wasn't even funny...although I admit it was well done in terms of its framing. 

As for BioShock Infinite...not a fan, really. 

Although I got to ask, who is really talking about those endings anymore? One thing you can't deny, Mass Effect 3 still gets discussed out there, infrequent as it is now, sure, but still relevent in some ways. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 05 août 2013 - 07:05 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
But gaming takes its cue from other competitive or sports like ventures.  They are more object oriented.  You may be ok with playing tennis and it ending in a tie, but that's not how it's usually done.  Even in friendly games people do play to win.  In video games we do the same.  We can compete against ourselves or our own best score or kill an enemy or in PvP win matches and so on, but the idea is winning is the goal.  And that applies to story games as well.  We're hard-wired to either want the hero to win or to lose for a good reason.  It's why blockbuster movies don't all end in ambiguity or in the hero's death all the time-most end with a clear understanding of what has happened and sometimes with a kiss. 

I actually kind of like this. I'm one of those hipster elitists who looks down on the people who only watch blockbuster movies. Now I can do that with other gamers too.

More seriously, this makes games sound like a limited medium. Or maybe games are OK and it's the gamers who are limited. Somewhat similar to an idea Redbelle was talking about a couple weeks ago; games are a kind of operant conditioning, and if you don't deliver a tasty pellet of rat chow at the very end of the game the whole experience evaluates to "fail."

[David7204]

It's not quite that simple, Alan.

Yes, video games can end ambiguously or whatever. But they need to validate the themes the rest of the story has established, not abandon or betray them.

For a story like, say, Kane and Lynch, which the two protagonists are the absolute unluckiest, most desperate people in fiction, it's completely okay for the ending to kind of suck. In fact, it's expected.

But for Mass Effect? No. The story has gone absolutely out of it's way to portray themes of meaningful heroism and choices that matter, as well the triumph of love and friendship over misery and loneliness. To have Shepard die no matter what in the ending is a betrayal of that.

Modifié par David7204, 05 août 2013 - 07:46 .

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
But gaming takes its cue from other competitive or sports like ventures.  They are more object oriented.  You may be ok with playing tennis and it ending in a tie, but that's not how it's usually done.  Even in friendly games people do play to win.  In video games we do the same.  We can compete against ourselves or our own best score or kill an enemy or in PvP win matches and so on, but the idea is winning is the goal.  And that applies to story games as well.  We're hard-wired to either want the hero to win or to lose for a good reason.  It's why blockbuster movies don't all end in ambiguity or in the hero's death all the time-most end with a clear understanding of what has happened and sometimes with a kiss. 

I actually kind of like this. I'm one of those hipster elitists who looks down on the people who only watch blockbuster movies. Now I can do that with other gamers too.

More seriously, this makes games sound like a limited medium. Or maybe games are OK and it's the gamers who are limited. Somewhat similar to an idea Redbelle was talking about a couple weeks ago; games are a kind of operant conditioning, and if you don't deliver a tasty pellet of rat chow at the very end of the game the whole experience evaluates to "fail."

I'm not saying that all movies that end that way are good or that all good movies must end that way.  I'm saying given context they often do and succeed because of it.  I'm a fan sometimes of arthouse or non-formulaic movies but I can't say I always like them because sometimes (as in David Lynch's movies) I just often see them as trying to be all intellectual but ending up as being meaningless and even repugnant.  Maybe he's going for that, but I find little to actually discuss or debate about Mulholland Drive and the little people.

But give me a truly thoughty movie and it may stick with me forever and have way more meaning than a formulaic hero wins and lives sort of thing.  The thing is it must remain true to itself.  ME1 and 2 set the story world.  ME3 ended in some other story.  The context for its endings is not there because we weren't watching a David Lynch movie.  We were playing a cross between Star Trek:TNG, Star Wars, Firefly, Farscape, Blade Runner, and Babylon 5.  We ended with the Matrix crossed with 2001.

I don't mind games that don't end with a win or a kiss or anything like that but I want them to retain their context.  I've played other games that ended ambiguously and that worked.  The player (me) completed the game, but the end choice was neither good nor bad.  And that's fine.  This game led up to that formulaic ending because of all we were shown before.  I wouldn't expect a David Lynch movie to have some Transformers ending and I wouldn't expect the Transformers to end with Kierkegaard or like Eraserhead.

[Kel Riever]

StreetMagic wrote...

Reminds me of a kid who wipes out on his bike and gets up... "I meant to do that."

Exactly.  Making something universally considered amazing is the ideal.

Polarizing is what you say after it goes to hell in a handbasket.

[Redbelle]

ME3 was a war story set in the realm of self imposed sci fi rules that then threw that rule book out the window.

Not, redeveloped the expectation's of the gamer to accept that the old rules could give way to new ones.

ME was always about a soldier fighting a war with grit, sweat and determination while being accompanied by interesting people. And at no point, other than the end, did he rub a magic lamp and have a genie pop out to say. I will grant you one wish. Provided it's one of these wishes. /he shot his way's through his problems because he was a soldier. No one ever had any say in that they had to save the galaxy. Only how saving the galaxy would effect both Shep and the character's around him

Shep's story, at it's heart, is a simple war story. It could have been set in WW2. It could have been set in a fantasy setting.

The settings and character's change but the story remains the same. One man, who can become the man the player want's him or she to be, fight's the good fight against insurmoutable odds.

The hook, was that you chose who, as your Shepard, fought that war. The saint or the sinner, or someone inbetween.

Your choice on who your character was defined how the war would ultimately play out.

And whether the endings are deem good or bad...... that didn't happen. The gameplay failed to give gamer's this payoff. They foreswore the soldier and went with the genie.

So yes. ME3 lost it's own plot. They lost character motivation. They lost plotting. They lost narrative planning to cater for the end.

And the more I hear from news feed's about the expanded vision of what they actually wanted to do, the more I feel that ME3 was rushed out the gate's at least a year to two years to soon.

The vision of what they intended only really manifested in the core mission's. The saving grace of ME3. But there are so many things that feel like ME3 was a rush job.

Character's being sidelined in favour of the the popular ones. Rather than all character's being treated with equal regard 'to' the popular one's. The dream sequence's that have no gameplay value. Fetch quest's galore. An end game that simply throws a horde mode wave at you of the hardest enemies. The failure to recognise Harbinger as the voice of the Reapers after all the work that went into him in ME2. In the same way that Liara's ME2 personae was built up from ME1 to go forward as an important character in ME3.

The list goes on. And what it comes down to is not that these notion's were pressed to one side, because circumstances dictated that BW were not able to address them. Because if they had, they could have made them more satisfying to play through as gamers. Because these people simply have to understand their market. And the outcry was so bad that it resulted in a year of press that pointed to this outcry while the game media tried to report it while trying to take both the gamer's side and the industries.

It should be the industry taking care of the gamer so the gamer can support the industry. Like the narrative of ME3 written above it should be that simple.

*Edit

As for the OP title where CH explains that polarising the fan base was necessary.

Really? That was part of his mastermind intent?

To shaft a narrative so badly that it requires a monumentally herculean effort to establish how to get out of this to make a sequel?

Except BW seem to want to make a prequel because then they don't have to figure out what comes next.

Yet ME is all about choice and consequence in linear fashion and carrying your history with you.

Fer crying out loud! Where. Is. CH's. Vision! What is his idea for the future of ME4? Any writer or lead needs an idea to hang what the story is going to be as they make it up.

Yet every time CH open's his mouth it just sound's like he doensn't know what he's doing in conjunction to making an ME game.

This talk of mystery..... it shouldn't be a mystery to him. He ought to know what the intention was. Even if he tell's people what he hoped to get out of the ending, people will still value their own opinion on what happened more while understanding the intent of the developers. And maybe, knowing their intent will act to focus the critcism and praise the endings get instead of seeing people flying off every which way talking about them.

Right now I just don't get how CH can possibly think that this mess involving the ending was ever a good idea. I don't perceive that he had a vision of how ME3 would end. It sounds like he's trying to make the best of what he had when the time ran out and had to present ME3 to the world.

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 août 2013 - 09:07 .

[David7204]

Wow, what a load of garbage.

#1. Developers are under absolutely no obligation to treat all characters 'equally.' That's frankly just stupid.

#2. If you don't want to do the 'fetch quests,' don't do them. ME 3 still has plenty of content. Of course, you've conveniently forgotten about looking for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1. And planning scanning in ME 2. This little idea of fetch quests 'replacing' side quests in ME 3 is incredibly silly.

#3. You seem to have deluded yourself into believing that ME 3 is somehow unique for having lots of potential ideas that didn't pan out. Every game in existence with a heavy story is going to have significant ideas that don't make the cut. That's simply the way development works, and criticizing it as a fault is utterly ridiculous.

Modifié par David7204, 05 août 2013 - 09:02 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

It's not quite that simple, Alan.

Yes, video games can end ambiguously or whatever. But they need to validate the themes the rest of the story has established, not abandon or betray them.

Holy ****! I'm (conceptually) agreeing with David. Moreover, conceptually, he actually has a point.

For a story like, say, Kane and Lynch, which the two protagonists are the absolute unluckiest, most desperate people in fiction, it's completely okay for the ending to kind of suck. In fact, it's expected.

Depends more on the how the narrative builds their situation along with how the tone of the story is set; Indie art film about two guys struggling to get through life (these films are typically very dark)? Yes, it is to be expected. 

But maybe it's about two lovable the unlucky guys trying to catch a break and survive; It'd be more tonally upbeat. A good example of this is the movie 'Trainspotting'.

But for Mass Effect? No. The story has gone absolutely out of it's way to portray themes of meaningful heroism and choices that matter, as well the triumph of love and friendship over misery and loneliness. To have Shepard die no matter what in the ending is a betrayal of that.

Alas, we somewhat concur. I agree with your overall conclusion but definitely not with your reasons.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...


#2. If you don't want to do the 'fetch quests,' don't do them. ME 3 still has plenty of content. Of course, you've conveniently forgotten about looking for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1. And planning scanning in ME 2. This little idea of fetch quests 'replacing' side quests in ME 3 is incredibly silly.

There were lots of side missions in ME1/2 some having small stories in them spanning multiple missions.  ME3 has a lot fewer.

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...

It's not quite that simple, Alan.

Yes, video games can end ambiguously or whatever. But they need to validate the themes the rest of the story has established, not abandon or betray them.

For a story like, say, Kane and Lynch, which the two protagonists are the absolute unluckiest, most desperate people in fiction, it's completely okay for the ending to kind of suck. In fact, it's expected.

But for Mass Effect? No. The story has gone absolutely out of it's way to portray themes of meaningful heroism and choices that matter, as well the triumph of love and friendship over misery and loneliness. To have Shepard die no matter what in the ending is a betrayal of that.

I'm not sure I can getting into your "meaningful heroism" concept today. Too much specialized jargon.

And again, Shepard doesn't always die. Though it wuldn't bother me much if he always did.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AlanC9 wrote...
And again, Shepard doesn't always die. Though it wuldn't bother me much if he always did.

I have to ask. In a game built around building your own Shepard's story. why do people feel that Shepard had to die in every story? 

[David7204]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...


#2. If you don't want to do the 'fetch quests,' don't do them. ME 3 still has plenty of content. Of course, you've conveniently forgotten about looking for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1. And planning scanning in ME 2. This little idea of fetch quests 'replacing' side quests in ME 3 is incredibly silly.

There were lots of side missions in ME1/2 some having small stories in them spanning multiple missions.  ME3 has a lot fewer.

And they're much longer and higher quality.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...


#2. If you don't want to do the 'fetch quests,' don't do them. ME 3 still has plenty of content. Of course, you've conveniently forgotten about looking for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1. And planning scanning in ME 2. This little idea of fetch quests 'replacing' side quests in ME 3 is incredibly silly.

There were lots of side missions in ME1/2 some having small stories in them spanning multiple missions.  ME3 has a lot fewer.

And they're much longer and higher quality.

ummmmmmmmmmmm no

[AlanC9]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...


#2. If you don't want to do the 'fetch quests,' don't do them. ME 3 still has plenty of content. Of course, you've conveniently forgotten about looking for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1. And planning scanning in ME 2. This little idea of fetch quests 'replacing' side quests in ME 3 is incredibly silly.

There were lots of side missions in ME1/2 some having small stories in them spanning multiple missions.  ME3 has a lot fewer.

Fewer? I suppose so. But ME2's and ME3 are of equivalent length AFAIK, and in my personal experience. (ME1's length is variable since you can waste a lot of time on the exploration and inventory-- I finish it in somewhat less time than the other games these days, but mileages vary).

Should ME3 have devoted more time to sidequests at the expense of other material? Or is it the number of sidequests that count, and ME3's should have been more numerous but shorter?

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 août 2013 - 09:16 .

[David7204]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm not sure I can getting into your "meaningful heroism" concept today. Too much specialized jargon.

And again, Shepard doesn't always die. Though it wuldn't bother me much if he always did.

It's a very simple concept. The actions of the protagonist matter. They affect something. Shepard does not spend three games fighting the Reapers for it to count for nothing. Shepard does not unite the galaxy for it to count for nothing.

Having Shepard survive was at the top of the list of things players expected Shepard's actions to 'cause.' To not have that even for a perfect playthrough of three games is the ending failing to validate that theme.

Modifié par David7204, 05 août 2013 - 09:17 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...


#2. If you don't want to do the 'fetch quests,' don't do them. ME 3 still has plenty of content. Of course, you've conveniently forgotten about looking for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1. And planning scanning in ME 2. This little idea of fetch quests 'replacing' side quests in ME 3 is incredibly silly.

There were lots of side missions in ME1/2 some having small stories in them spanning multiple missions.  ME3 has a lot fewer.

And they're much longer and higher quality.

No. They really weren't that great quality. They were long, yes. A bit too long in some points. I'm fine with them as they are, but they are not much higher quality.

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm not sure I can getting into your "meaningful heroism" concept today. Too much specialized jargon.

And again, Shepard doesn't always die. Though it wuldn't bother me much if he always did.

It's a very simple concept. The actions of the protagonist matter. The affect something. Shepard does not spend three games fighting the Reapers for it to count for nothing. Shepard does not unite the galaxy for it to count for nothing.

You're missing the part of the argument where Shepard doesn't do anything that matters.

[AlanC9]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
And again, Shepard doesn't always die. Though it wuldn't bother me much if he always did.

I have to ask. In a game built around building your own Shepard's story. why do people feel that Shepard had to die in every story? 

Who felt that? I remember a couple of posters here feeling that way, but they're a fringe element.

[Steelcan]

AlanC9 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...


#2. If you don't want to do the 'fetch quests,' don't do them. ME 3 still has plenty of content. Of course, you've conveniently forgotten about looking for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1. And planning scanning in ME 2. This little idea of fetch quests 'replacing' side quests in ME 3 is incredibly silly.

There were lots of side missions in ME1/2 some having small stories in them spanning multiple missions.  ME3 has a lot fewer.

Fewer? I suppose so. But ME2's and ME3 are of equivalent length AFAIK, and in my personal experience. (ME1's length is variable since you can waste a lot of time on the exploration and inventory-- I finish it in somewhat less time than the other games these days, but mileages vary).

Should ME3 have devoted more time to sidequests at the expense of other material? Or is it the number of sidequests that count, and ME3's should have been more numerous but shorter?

Missions like the Tuchunka guns or the Noveria fighter base take a matter of minutes.  Whereas in ME2 there were a series of missions about hunting down Blue Suns thatb were preying on archaeologists and merchants.

[Redbelle]

David7204 wrote...

Wow, what a load of garbage.

#1. Developers are under absolutely no obligation to treat all characters 'equally.' That's frankly just stupid.

#2. If you don't want to do the 'fetch quests,' don't do them. ME 3 still has plenty of content. Of course, you've conveniently forgotten about looking for rocks on cookie-cutter planets in ME 1. And planning scanning in ME 2. This little idea of fetch quests 'replacing' side quests in ME 3 is incredibly silly.

#3. You seem to have deluded yourself into believing that ME 3 is somehow unique for having lots of potential ideas that didn't pan out. Every game in existence with a heavy story is going to have significant ideas that don't make the cut. That's simply the way development works, and criticizing it as a fault is utterly ridiculous.

1. Why not? And why is it stupid to, as a developer, give a character like Vega, equal conversation consideration, to someone like Garrus?

Because he's not as popular? Isn't conversation and the action's of these character's what makes them popular? And as teh new guy, doesn't he have alot of catching up to do in this area as opposed to someone like Garrus who already has a fan base?

ME does, after all, rely on conversation and event's to bring character's into the sphere of public affection.

2. The fetch quests would be ok, if they were part and parcel of something more. Variety of quest mode's was lost and made to work primarily through the galaxy map. That's not so much critisism as an observation. The fact I found it boring and repetive is the critisim and yes, that's an opinion. But it's also feedback.

3. Deluded? Ok..... Chill. I'm not here to argue the finer points of how you feel a game developer is entitled to go about there business.

I'm talking about a AAA game developer putting out a sub AAA game. If you wish to ignore the negative's of ME3 that's your business. But in doing so your skewing a balanced and objective view of how BW developed, what is still seen, as the Star Wars, of the game playe's generation.

That's no small title to overlook. Yet, certain area's didn't pan out. that could have lifted the game and resulted in fewer issues you seem keen on ignoring and/or rationalising.

Gamer's do not encourage developers to develop better games by patting them on the back for a release regardless of quality or effort.

I believe BW did put alot of effort into ME3. But that circumstances and time worked against them so that what was released was not as polished or developed as even they would have liked it to be as AAA developers.

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 août 2013 - 09:22 .