482 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

JamesFaith wrote...



Exactly.

They said that they are listen to fans - but they also from beginning set limites how far they are willing to go (no changes in endings).

It was always compromise between wishes of fans and what BW can / want to do it.
 

Well let's see.  How wonderful are they then for saying maybe one thing that might be true?  Truth is they said a lot of things, most of which never bore fruit.  They said a lot of things they never even had to say in order to amp up blind sales-those preorders from people that were set to buy the game sight unseen.  So, we're now to praise them because all those pre-release statements were just a little bump in the road but bully for them because they took some ideas from fans later on, created DLC that had some of those ideas (in a very twisted version of what people really wanted), and all's right with the world of BW again?

Understand BW has always listened to fans and has always twisted around what fans said they wanted in order to make it seem like they were giving them what they wanted by not giving them what they wanted.

If fans of a BW game (or the team that created ME3) said they wanted something, BW would give it to them but in some way so as to totally ****** them off.  That's where Refuse came from.  A large group of fans angry over the original endings were so because Shepard was spineless and didn't argue with the kid.  A huge lot of them (us) said they'd at least like to see Shepard return and be Shepard again and stand up and resist all of this, even if it meant s/he'd die for it.  Ok the last part was said but what people truly wanted was something more than that-and this was said repeatedly, but all BW remembered was Shepard refusing and dying.  They knew what people were saying and chose to not give them what they wanted.  But oh it seems like they listened.

Even the EC is an example of that.  All they did was dress the original endings up and in some places they added crap that's even more laughable than the original endings were.  They used the slides to make it all seem happier and like everything is ok, but the EC is essentially the original endings in high heels.  Casey Hudson even said this, that it fundamentally didn't change anything.  However, it made all those yapping mouths at IGN and Game Informer and everyone else now have even more ammunition to shoot at fans-fans had been given an ending so shut up.  Except they totally ignored that fans never got anywhere near what was promised constantly pre-release, and what was used to SELL the game and get us to buy it. 

The thing was fans listened far too much to BW and needed to be punished for actually believing them.  So what if BW SEEMED to listen-they actually heard a lot of words but never heard anything that was meant, ignored what fans really wanted and did the minimum to try and redeem the junk they released.

The Citadel DLC is ok.  It's sort of fun in places, sort of stupid in others, and bugged for many.  It's the final DLC and meant to act as the end DLC, not the ending of the story but the end of the game.  It's in the wrong place, but for some it works as at least finishing off the game on a brighter note.  It's like the difference though between justice and just mere judgement.  Justice takes into account even the minor points and the whole situation.  Judgement merely applies some broad strokes and rote decisions with little consideration for intent.

No, I never expected anything from BW after that original set of endings, and then after all that they said, and then after they said they were listening.  They never proved to me they were capable or even cared to try and understand the intent behind what anyone said.  I'd have settled for no Citadel and some minor changes to the endings or to at least one, and I'd have paid for that.  Instead, they couldn't give fans one real thing they wanted.  They substituted some "sort of" content for that real thing.  They didn't listen one bit.  They had their fingers in their ears and elsewhere and said, "so what" to fans who dared to say, "but you promised..."  And other fans and IGN and all the rest said BW had every right to do whatever they wanted in all of this.  I hope everyone remembers that with every game they get from now on.  You have no right to ever complain no matter what garbage a dev gives you-all that matters is what they wanted you to get.  Pay up and smile.

[Iakus]

Morocco Mole wrote...

iakus wrote...
Fans:  We want new/different endings
Bioware:  No.  But let's compromise:  We won't change the endings
Fans:  ...yay?

Because despite what idiot fans think. It is actually incredibly expensive to make an entirely new ending out of wholecloth and have it replace one already in the game. Especially if you are going to have to give it away for free to appease them and lose money on it.

Refuse.

AKA "Don't like our endings?  Frak you, rocks fall, everyone dies!"

That must ahve been the most expensive trolling ever.

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

iakus wrote...
Fans:  We want new/different endings
Bioware:  No.  But let's compromise:  We won't change the endings
Fans:  ...yay?

Because despite what idiot fans think. It is actually incredibly expensive to make an entirely new ending out of wholecloth and have it replace one already in the game. Especially if you are going to have to give it away for free to appease them and lose money on it.

Refuse.

AKA "Don't like our endings?  Frak you, rocks fall, everyone dies!"

That must ahve been the most expensive trolling ever.

This.  I tend to think that was all the EC was intended for-to add refuse, make it a non-ending, make it insta-death with no real fight to the death and then death (which actually could have been satisfying in its own way).

Oh and gee, BW never would have had to create a whole new ending if they'd only done some of what they originally promised before they released the game with the original endings.  And the stuff they added to the EC didn't make it better for all that it may have cost them.  And it wasn't given away for free or even done because they just wanted to be super nice.  They released a game with an ending no one could say with a straight face was good.  And it was costing them and EA money every day that they ignored the problem and just thought fans would go away.  They didn't get the speculation they wanted.

A real interesting thing I just saw bears out what many of us have said and goes contrary to all of those that just say "use your imagination" and about the disconnect between what the endings (especially destroy) say and what is shown.  The vast majority of human beings believe what they see far more than what they're told.  This was the subject of a recent National Geographic Brain Games show. 

So that Destroy ending says one thing, tries to tell you that Shepard lives, but shows us other things that would lead you to believe Shepard should die, and then doesn't show what happens with any finality.  Those of us who can't internalize that as being a Shepard lives ending have reason to feel that way.  We don't see it. 

And for those that say the EC is an example of BW listening to fans-they didn't even listen to themselves, let alone fans.  They said they'd give fans closure, but all choices do feature some ambiguity-some more than others.  And that's not closure.  And the explanation for all of this that was added to the EC, was like some 2 year old explaining what happened to all the cookies in the cookie jar.  People wanted something rational but most often said they'd except far less if only BW would show what happens to the torso.  If only Shepard could refuse and act like Shepard again and have some sense.  If only....BW had listened truly.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 09 août 2013 - 09:20 .

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

iakus wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

iakus wrote...
Fans:  We want new/different endings
Bioware:  No.  But let's compromise:  We won't change the endings
Fans:  ...yay?

Because despite what idiot fans think. It is actually incredibly expensive to make an entirely new ending out of wholecloth and have it replace one already in the game. Especially if you are going to have to give it away for free to appease them and lose money on it.

Refuse.

AKA "Don't like our endings?  Frak you, rocks fall, everyone dies!"

That must ahve been the most expensive trolling ever.

And where were we ever give reason to suspect that we would live if we refused?

[chemiclord]

They listened to the fans who offered suggestions they could realistically do within the constraints they had.

They ignored fans who continued to demand what they could not provide.

Whether or not they should have actually produced an ending that was actually good so that they didn't have those constraints is an entirely separate argument in which I think you would find considerable agreement. You could even argue that they should have at least TRIED to accommodate fans that wanted more, even if it meant it would cost them more money.

But one thing I really don't see any argument anymore is that they weren't listening. They very clearly were.

[Iakus]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

iakus wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

iakus wrote...
Fans:  We want new/different endings
Bioware:  No.  But let's compromise:  We won't change the endings
Fans:  ...yay?

Because despite what idiot fans think. It is actually incredibly expensive to make an entirely new ending out of wholecloth and have it replace one already in the game. Especially if you are going to have to give it away for free to appease them and lose money on it.

Refuse.

AKA "Don't like our endings?  Frak you, rocks fall, everyone dies!"

That must ahve been the most expensive trolling ever.

And where were we ever give reason to suspect that we would live if we refused?

It has nothing to do with Refuse in itself.

Just pointing out that Bioware could have added one or more new endings that would have made their audience happier if they really wanted to.  But instead the one "different" ending they did make was simply trolling said audience. 

EC was simply a stalling tactic to stem the flow of exchanges and resales.  They want stores to actually stock their next game, after all

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Such as? What ending could they have added without dismantling the scenario they've chosen to defend?

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...
It has nothing to do with Refuse in itself.

Just pointing out that Bioware could have added one or more new endings that would have made their audience happier if they really wanted to.  But instead the one "different" ending they did make was simply trolling said audience. 

EC was simply a stalling tactic to stem the flow of exchanges and resales.  They want stores to actually stock their next game, after all

Sure... they COULD have given you a successful Refuse... and invalidated the very moral dilemma that they were insistent they weren't going to invalidate right from the start of the backlash.  They had been VERY consistent on that score; that the endings were NOT going to change.

If the EC really was a stall tactic, they sure picked a REALLY odd way to satisfy the enraged masses.  Maybe... just maybe... you're not the audience they're targeting anymore?

Face it, Bioware broke up with you.  They've moved on, and you're the bitter ex that just can't let go.

[AlanC9]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Such as? What ending could they have added without dismantling the scenario they've chosen to defend?

I'll bet all iakus is talking about is a post-Destroy reunion scene.

Adding this without dismantling the balance of the existing endings wouldn't have been conceptually impossible. Between big stuff like a galactic dark age, and little stuff like Tali never seeing Rannoch again, there's plenty of bad stuff to counterbalance the happy scene. But then we're talking about a fair amount of content, and now you'd need more content for the other two endings.

That's a lot of content. As opposed to adding an explicit Refuse, which was all but free.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 août 2013 - 10:09 .

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

iakus wrote...
It has nothing to do with Refuse in itself.

Just pointing out that Bioware could have added one or more new endings that would have made their audience happier if they really wanted to.  But instead the one "different" ending they did make was simply trolling said audience. 

EC was simply a stalling tactic to stem the flow of exchanges and resales.  They want stores to actually stock their next game, after all

Sure... they COULD have given you a successful Refuse... and invalidated the very moral dilemma that they were insistent they weren't going to invalidate right from the start of the backlash.  They had been VERY consistent on that score; that the endings were NOT going to change.

For the second time this isn't about a successful refuse.  This is about any kind of changed ending.

I am utterly convinced that if tehy had simply added SHepard's survival and rescue (as opposed to a gasping torso)  to the High EMS outcomes of all three endings, it would have sriously taken the wind out of ending hate's sails.  Not entirely, but by itself, that would have greatly reduced it.

Bonus points if:

-EDI and the geth got a decent goodbye scene, such as Thane, Mordin, or even Anderson got
-Or if they had keptit ambiguous to the audience if the Catalyst was telling teh truth about all synthetics dying 
-Or if the player could ensure some kind of outcome where the Shepalyst didn't take over the galaxy and rule it as an immortal god-emperor
-Or if Synthesis merely developed the technology for it, rather than violating teh genetic code of every living being in the galaxy.
If the EC really was a stall tactic, they sure picked a REALLY odd way to satisfy the enraged masses.  Maybe... just maybe... you're not the audience they're targeting anymore?

Face it, Bioware broke up with you.  They've moved on, and you're the bitter ex that just can't let go.

I'm not a bitter ex, I'm a bitter customer.  And only one of many.  Face it, artists who can't sell their products become starving artists.

[PinkysPain]

iakus wrote...
Refuse.

AKA "Don't like our endings?  Frak you, rocks fall, everyone dies!"

That must ahve been the most expensive trolling ever.

Rocks fall, everyone dies AND in the next cycle they'll just do what the Catalyst wants anyway.

https://twitter.com/...770232138301440

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'll bet all iakus is talking about is a post-Destroy reunion scene.

Not all I'm talking about, though it is part of it, yes. 

Adding this without dismantling the balance of the existing endings wouldn't have been conceptually impossible. Between big stuff like a galactic dark age, and little stuff like Tali never seeing Rannoch again, there's plenty of bad stuff to counterbalance the happy scene. But then we're talking about a fair amount of content, and now you'd need more content for the other two endings.

That's a lot of content. As opposed to adding an explicit Refuse, which was all but free.

The EMS system seems tailor-made for creating highly varied outcomes. There was no reason why better (and worse) outcomes to what we got couldn't happen.

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

For the second time this isn't about a successful refuse.  This is about any kind of changed ending.

I am utterly convinced that if tehy had simply added SHepard's survival and rescue (as opposed to a gasping torso)  to the High EMS outcomes of all three endings, it would have sriously taken the wind out of ending hate's sails.  Not entirely, but by itself, that would have greatly reduced it.

And my response wasn't so much about a successful refuse as it was about any kind of changed ending.  Add a reunion scenario (for example) without similarly fleshing out the other two options presents Destroy as the "right" ending (because Bioware put THAT much more effort into it), thusly defeating the very thing they were trying to present.

It's one of those things that theoretically would be fine (adding significant content to all three options), but practically, for something they pretty much HAD to release for free (or simply ignite an entirely different ****storm), probably wasn't all that feasible.

Bonus points if:

-EDI and the geth got a decent goodbye scene, such as Thane, Mordin, or even Anderson got
-Or if they had keptit ambiguous to the audience if the Catalyst was telling teh truth about all synthetics dying 
-Or if the player could ensure some kind of outcome where the Shepalyst didn't take over the galaxy and rule it as an immortal god-emperor
-Or if Synthesis merely developed the technology for it, rather than violating teh genetic code of every living being in the galaxy.

Well, that's an issue of execution, which I readily agree was disastrously terrible.  But those are things that really should have been done at the start; trying to justify that level of added content to EA for something they were releasing for free wasn't going to fly.

I'm not a bitter ex, I'm a bitter customer.  And only one of many.  Face it, artists who can't sell their products become starving artists.

Your continued presence here doesn't reflect being a customer.  Otherwise you would have walked away and not looked back by now.  Your continued presence betrays your emotional investment.

You continue to speak up in the small chance that you can "remind" Bioware about the games they used to make; the games you liked, and want them to keep making.  It's a fools errand.  They haven't "forgotten".  They just don't want to make those games anymore.

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

And my response wasn't so much about a successful refuse as it was about any kind of changed ending.  Add a reunion scenario (for example) without similarly fleshing out the other two options presents Destroy as the "right" ending (because Bioware put THAT much more effort into it), thusly defeating the very thing they were trying to present.

It's one of those things that theoretically would be fine (adding significant content to all three options), but practically, for something they pretty much HAD to release for free (or simply ignite an entirely different ****storm), probably wasn't all that feasible.

I'd argue changing the Control and Synthesis cinematics to something less obviously fatal, adding a scene of  a coupleof Aliance rescuers (like in ME1's ending) and a scene of Shepard clearly alive that can play in all three endings would not have been much less feasbilt than that troll ending we cal Refuse.

But hey, I freely admit to not knowing how this stuff works.

Well, that's an issue of execution, which I readily agree was disastrously terrible.  But those are things that really should have been done at the start; trying to justify that level of added content to EA for something they were releasing for free wasn't going to fly.

I'd agree they should have been there from the start.  And not including them showed how hilariously disconnected they were from their own audience.  And again, I think it only would have taken surgical cuts here and there from the scenes be bring the points across.

Your continued presence here doesn't reflect being a customer.  Otherwise you would have walked away and not looked back by now.  Your continued presence betrays your emotional investment.

You continue to speak up in the small chance that you can "remind" Bioware about the games they used to make; the games you liked, and want them to keep making.  It's a fools errand.  They haven't "forgotten".  They just don't want to make those games anymore.

Darn right I had an emotional investment.  I hate seeing Bioware do this to myself, to others, and to themselves. 

Fortuntely, given DAI seems to be embracing something closer to the Baldur's Gate model is a hopeful indication that someone is listening to feedback.  Hopefully as more information comes along I'll be able to participate there more.

In addition, there are mods (including MEHEM) I like to keep tabs on.

So, for the time being, I'm still here, saying 'Sic transit gloria mundi" 

[Kel Riever]

I don't really care what BioWare was thinking about when they did the EC, other than it didn't fix the problem at all. The important thing for me is to not send money to people who don't fix their problems. If they can get their money off someone else, good. Financial Darwinism.

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

I'd argue changing the Control and Synthesis cinematics to something less obviously fatal, adding a scene of  a coupleof Aliance rescuers (like in ME1's ending) and a scene of Shepard clearly alive that can play in all three endings would not have been much less feasbilt than that troll ending we cal Refuse.

But hey, I freely admit to not knowing how this stuff works.

Considering that Shepard's death is pretty much the ONLY reason that Control wouldn't be ideal (unless you were one of those overly vengeful people that feel the Reapers HAVE to die no matter what), removing that would, again, completely defeat the moral dilemma.

You may THINK it's not hard, and wouldn't require much effort, to maintain a "balance" with Shepard alive in all three endings; but I think you're wrong.  It would require some considerable rewriting and content addition (if not alteration).  Again, I just don't see EA signing off on that.

Modifié par chemiclord, 09 août 2013 - 11:06 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

The EMS system seems tailor-made for creating highly varied outcomes. There was no reason why better (and worse) outcomes to what we got couldn't happen.

Depends on exactly what you're proposing. Design intent matters too.

[Iakus]

chemiclord wrote...

Considering that Shepard's death is pretty much the ONLY reason that Control wouldn't be ideal (unless you were one of those overly vengeful people that feel the Reapers HAVE to die no matter what), removing that would, again, completely defeat the moral dilemma.

Personlly, I don't find a negotiated surrender to the Reapers is a "good" ending whether or not Shepard lives.  the moral silema of dooming the galaxy to live under the heal of a cybernetic god-emperor who may or may not someday go nuts.

Though allowing Shepard to live with that result may have sat better with some people, sure.

You may THINK it's not hard, and wouldn't require much effort, to maintain a "balance" with Shepard alive in all three endings; but I think you're wrong.  It would require some considerable rewriting and content addition (if not alteration).  Again, I just don't see EA signing off on that.

Personally, i think allowing Shepard to live in all three endings would have actually restored smoe balance.  I may be wrong about how much effort it would have taken of course.  But most surveys I've seen show Destroy is as popular, if not more popular, than all the other ending choices combined.  I strongly suspect Shepard's survival is a major factor here.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

The EMS system seems tailor-made for creating highly varied outcomes. There was no reason why better (and worse) outcomes to what we got couldn't happen.

Depends on exactly what you're proposing. Design intent matters too.

I'm proposing different numbers combined with different choices and perhaps even different War Assets equaling different outcomes.  Not just RGB, but who worked on the Crucible, what supplies did you find.  Destroy might spare the geth, but create some other consequence.  Control might create a new Catalyst with a different agenda.  Perhaps a "bad" version of Synthesis, or a more limited "imperfect" version.  the possibilities are, well, not limitless, but certainly considerable.

The Crucible is supposed to be adaptive, and each race adds to it, right?

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...

Considering that Shepard's death is pretty much the ONLY reason that Control wouldn't be ideal (unless you were one of those overly vengeful people that feel the Reapers HAVE to die no matter what), removing that would, again, completely defeat the moral dilemma.

Like I said, I can see this working. Without Reapers to repair the relays, we're talking galactic Dark Age. Which I really like for a sequel, so I hope this gets canonized.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

Considering that Shepard's death is pretty much the ONLY reason that Control wouldn't be ideal (unless you were one of those overly vengeful people that feel the Reapers HAVE to die no matter what), removing that would, again, completely defeat the moral dilemma.

Like I said, I can see this working. Without Reapers to repair the relays, we're talking galactic Dark Age. Which I really like for a sequel, so I hope this gets canonized.

And this is why I see teh synthetic holocaust of Destroy as arbitrary and unnecessary.  I actually agree that without the Reapers to repair the relays, the galaxy faces a galactic Dark Age.  At least for a while.  THAT should be the price for Destroy.  The galxy won its freedom, but with that freedom means you have to rebuild the galaxy yourself. 

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
I'm proposing different numbers combined with different choices and perhaps even different War Assets equaling different outcomes.  Not just RGB, but who worked on the Crucible, what supplies did you find.  Destroy might spare the geth, but create some other consequence.  Control might create a new Catalyst with a different agenda.  Perhaps a "bad" version of Synthesis, or a more limited "imperfect" version.  the possibilities are, well, not limitless, but certainly considerable.

The Crucible is supposed to be adaptive, and each race adds to it, right?

Sounds like you're arguing for high-EMS endings to result in happier consequences across the board. Low-EMS isn't all that relevant without a total redesign since as it stands nobody gets those endings except by trying. I suppose that could be done in a way that leaves the endings relatively balanced. But I thought the unhappiness of the endings wasn't your real problem?

Anyway, this was obviously unfeasible for the EC, so you're talking original design.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 août 2013 - 11:44 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
I'm proposing different numbers combined with different choices and perhaps even different War Assets equaling different outcomes.  Not just RGB, but who worked on the Crucible, what supplies did you find.  Destroy might spare the geth, but create some other consequence.  Control might create a new Catalyst with a different agenda.  Perhaps a "bad" version of Synthesis, or a more limited "imperfect" version.  the possibilities are, well, not limitless, but certainly considerable.

The Crucible is supposed to be adaptive, and each race adds to it, right?

Sounds like you're arguing for high-EMS endings to result in happier consequences across the board. Low-EMS isn't all that relevant without a total redesign since as it stands nobody gets those endings except by trying. I suppose that could be done in a way that leaves the endings relatively balanced. But I thought the unhappiness of the endings wasn't your real problem?

Anyway, this was obviously unfeasible for the EC, so you're talking original design.

Not happier consequences.  Different consequnces.  Across the board.  Obviously people would find different consequences more appealing than others.  Which is the point.  Frying the toasters doesn't work for you?  Find something more palatable.

Or if you screw up and get a lower EMS ending, deliberately or not, there are other things that can go wrong.  Why should Destroy be the only low EMS ending that scours all life from Earth?

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

Not happier consequences.  Different consequnces.  Across the board.  Obviously people would find different consequences more appealing than others.  Which is the point.  Frying the toasters doesn't work for you?  Find something more palatable.

You've got that now. it's called Control.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Not happier consequences.  Different consequnces.  Across the board.  Obviously people would find different consequences more appealing than others.  Which is the point.  Frying the toasters doesn't work for you?  Find something more palatable.

You've got that now. it's called Control.

Control doesn't get rid of the Reapers.  People don't find that palatable either.  You know that.