876 réponses à ce sujet

[durasteel]

dreamgazer wrote...
I actually read the entire thing!

You're drawing an inaccurate comparison with the rest of your post that can be very cleanly summarized with the quoted bit, though.  It was not commissioned, therefore demands to change the material are bogus.

My premise was not that the customers--even if 100% of them were dissatisfied--should be able to compell a re-write. What I proposed was that "it just seems like good business for the author to take their concerns seriously and not to be dismissive." 

Outright demands might be bogus from your perspective, but a request to correct a non-conforming product is never an unreasonable thing from a dissatisfied paying customer.

Modifié par durasteel, 12 décembre 2013 - 10:43 .

[AlanC9]

durasteel wrote...
I do think it would have been far better for them to release a "director's cut" with real changes as opposed to an "extended cut" that just polished the turd, but at no point did I suggest that they had to do any damn thing.

"Director's cut" isn't the right phrase for what you want, is it? That's used for a version of a film that the director would have released if not for running time limits, MPAA or studio interference, and so forth. But you're opposed to the creative team's actual intent, from what I've seen.

[JamesFaith]

durasteel wrote...

Just speaking for myself here, but I've not at any point been talking about rights or obligations. When I criticise the ending of ME3, I do so to reinforce an assertion about what BioWare should do going forward, with an eye toward ME4. I have never suggested that BioWare wasn't well within their rights to do exactly what they did, or that they had to do anything at all.

I do think it would have been far better for them to release a "director's cut" with real changes as opposed to an "extended cut" that just polished the turd, but at no point did I suggest that they had to do any damn thing.

No, my position has been that they need to fix in the next game what they broke in the last one, not because they have to but because it is good business practice and it would make their customers happy.

You folks who get all worked up over this artistic integrity need to keep in mind that bad art merits no integrity. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and beholding the end of Mass Effect 3... it sucked.

First - you made parallel with too things where major differences were extent of rights and obligations. So this point matter.

Second - you already got Director cut. Director cut is version made by vision of creator and cleansed from outer influence like demands on lenght. What you demand is "Cut altered by wishes of fans, but only by those with similar preferences as I".  Because some customers are already happy and demands of others are so wide and often contradictory that they can be appeased all.

And all art have its integrity because all art is subjective in its nature and every so-called great art can't be considered bad by other and vice-versa by individual person.  "Bad art" and "good art" are purely subjective terms.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 12 décembre 2013 - 10:46 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I found that more offensive in the end, the insanity that the fans had in the backlash. I felt empathetic for the creators because they worked at pleasing people, failed at it yes, but were given nothing but hate for their troubles. If fan's feel burned by it, that is their choice in the end, but I guess I can empathize more with the artists, not the masses here because ive seen it first hand as a neutral party. 

I think one of the reasons why people were angry is at seemingly how little work actually went into the orginal endings. Things like using 95% of the same cutscene for each ending, very little in the way of details or exposition about what was happening; ending with an A, B, or C ending; and then a note to buy more DLC. It definately felt like the developers just phoned in the ending because it was so minimalist.

[AlanC9]

What kind of "real changes" were you looking for, durasteel?

[dreamgazer]

durasteel wrote...

Outright demands might be bogus from your perspective, but a request to correct a non-conforming product is never an unreasonable thing from a dissatisfied paying customer.

How was it "non-conforming" on this base product-consumer level, exactly? 

[durasteel]

AlanC9 wrote...
"Director's cut" isn't the right phrase for what you want, is it? That's used for a version of a film that the director would have released if not for running time limits, MPAA or studio interference, and so forth. But you're opposed to the creative team's actual intent, from what I've seen.

On the contrary, "studio interference" is the likely culprit. There was no way SWTOR was going to release on time, so EA switched the release windows for SWTOR and ME3, cutting months from the development time of this game. 

I don't think that anyone can seriously argue that, absent some kind of extraordinary time pressure, the same Mass Effect team that scripted Rannoch and Tuchanka and the first two Mass Effect games would have released this turd of an ending. They're not idiots. These are some of the most talented game developers in the business, so they knew they were shipping a bad ending, and they wouldn't have done that if they'd had time to do it right.

So, yeah... I would have liked a Director's Cut where Casey and Co. were given a chance at a do-over, because I know they were capable of makng something great.

[durasteel]

JamesFaith wrote...
...
Second - you already got Director cut. Director cut is version made by vision of creator and cleansed from outer influence like demands on lenght. What you demand is "Cut altered by wishes of fans, but only by those with similar preferences as I".  Because some customers are already happy and demands of others are so wide and often contradictory that they can be appeased all.
...

Pull the other one, its got bells on.

The Extended Cut was a PR stunt. EA's bean counters were freaking out over the metacritic ratings and the fact that sales numbers dropped off a cliff after a promising launch. Dr. Muzyka made the call to have the team add some content to offer "clarity and closure" on the existing ending rather than to actually change anything, because he was feeling protective of his guys in Edmonton who were getting flack from customers and from corporate.

You played the extended cut, I assume. Did that really strike you as a heatfelt expression of someone's creative vision? Really?

[JamesFaith]

durasteel wrote...

Pull the other one, its got bells on.

The Extended Cut was a PR stunt. EA's bean counters were freaking out over the metacritic ratings and the fact that sales numbers dropped off a cliff after a promising launch. Dr. Muzyka made the call to have the team add some content to offer "clarity and closure" on the existing ending rather than to actually change anything, because he was feeling protective of his guys in Edmonton who were getting flack from customers and from corporate.

You played the extended cut, I assume. Did that really strike you as a heatfelt expression of someone's creative vision? Really?

Yes, because there were no major changes in story (creative vision), just changes in visual form of endings. It was just extension of original creative vision.

You are now on field of subjective opinions and my subjective opinion is "no fan-rage changes against will of authors".

[AlanC9]

durasteel wrote...
I don't think that anyone can seriously argue that, absent some kind of extraordinary time pressure, the same Mass Effect team that scripted Rannoch and Tuchanka and the first two Mass Effect games would have released this turd of an ending. They're not idiots. These are some of the most talented game developers in the business, so they knew they were shipping a bad ending, and they wouldn't have done that if they'd had time to do it right.

So, yeah... I would have liked a Director's Cut where Casey and Co. were given a chance at a do-over, because I know they were capable of makng something great.

Depends on what you think the specific problems with the ending are.

What do you figure would have changed with more time? What would you want changed? And are these two lists the same?

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 décembre 2013 - 11:13 .

[durasteel]

AlanC9 wrote...

What kind of "real changes" were you looking for, durasteel?

Honestly, I just wanted something good. I know a lot of people wanted a "happy ending," but I could have easily handled an ultimate sacrifice. There is something very powerful about the last full measure of a soldier's devotion.

When I finished Mass Effect and heard "Faunts" for the first time, I sat and read the credits because of how blown away I was by that game. I remember it very clearly. When I finished Mass Effect 2 and saw the Harbinger and the reaper fleet, I was really looking forward to the next game because of how much I had enjoyed that one.

When I finished Mass Effect 3, I was stunned by how bad the ending was. I was alone in the room, but said "What the f### was that s###?" to the screen. 

I'm not a writer of video games, I'm just a consumer. I can spitball ideas for better endings, but what I was looking for was an ending that was consistent with the game I had just played, at least to the point of not detracting from the rest of the game. The ends of Mass Effect games haven't been their strongest points, and I can't say I was crazy about the baby reaper, but they were at least satisfying wrap-ups for the packaged game. This one was so bad I never finished a second play-through.

I'm not going to pretend to know exactly what should have been changed. I feel pretty confident that the Catalyst should never have been, and that "synthetics will always rebel" was a very weak theme. I also think that Shepard should have gone out fighting. What I was looking for, though, was something that satisfied.

[durasteel]

dreamgazer wrote...
How was it "non-conforming" on this base product-consumer level, exactly? 

It failed to live up to the standards of quality that had been established by the previous installments and failed therefore to meet the reasonable expectations of purchasers.

[dreamgazer]

durasteel wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
How was it "non-conforming" on this base product-consumer level, exactly? 

It failed to live up to the standards of quality that had been established by the previous installments and failed therefore to meet the reasonable expectations of purchasers.

That's entirely subjective, though, about a subjective fictional medium. 

The same could (has) be said about the entirety of Mass Effect 2 and its failure to properly follow-up on Mass Effect.

[durasteel]

dreamgazer wrote...
That's entirely subjective, though, about a subjective fictional medium. 

The same could (has) be said about the entirety of Mass Effect 2 and its failure to properly follow-up on Mass Effect.

While somewhat subjective, it is not entirely so. Any game has critics, and I can't deny that ME2 could have been polished a bit (I keep thinking about the heavy-handed "we're all going on the shuttle now!" ruse) it was still largly satisfactory to the majority of its purchasers.

If you search for "Mass Effect 2 controversy" you get hits for the "naked alien sex" thing on FOX "News" from the first game and then go right into links regarding the ending of Mass Effect 3.

It might have been said about 2 by a few, but it was said about 3 by acclamation.

[AlanC9]

durasteel wrote...
Honestly, I just wanted something good. I know a lot of people wanted a "happy ending," but I could have easily handled an ultimate sacrifice. There is something very powerful about the last full measure of a soldier's devotion.

So you want Bio to have spent more money, but you're not sure on what? .

What if had they spent it on, say, an expanded Refuse? Watch the heroic deaths of each and every squadmate, and finish with the destruction of the Normandy!

[eyezonlyii]

AlanC9 wrote...

durasteel wrote...
Honestly, I just wanted something good. I know a lot of people wanted a "happy ending," but I could have easily handled an ultimate sacrifice. There is something very powerful about the last full measure of a soldier's devotion.

So you want Bio to have spent more money, but you're not sure on what? .

What if had they spent it on, say, an expanded Refuse? Watch the heroic deaths of each and every squadmate, and finish with the destruction of the Normandy!

Why not? If they added refuse, they could have added another ending as well that showed undeniably Shepard living. Or explained WHY the Crucible can selectively target tech in Control, but can't distinguish between it in Destroy.

[JamesFaith]

eyezonlyii wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So you want Bio to have spent more money, but you're not sure on what? .

What if had they spent it on, say, an expanded Refuse? Watch the heroic deaths of each and every squadmate, and finish with the destruction of the Normandy!

Why not? If they added refuse, they could have added another ending as well that showed undeniably Shepard living. Or explained WHY the Crucible can selectively target tech in Control, but can't distinguish between it in Destroy.

And then they could add Successful refuse and conventional victory.
And IT.
And Harbinger space boss fight and Harbinger inside boss fight and TIM boss fight.
And change Catalyst for Anderson, LI, Virmire nonsurvivor, TIM, Harbinger, Avina or Vigil hologram (all demands from BSN).
And change Crucible for Klendagon canon, big solar canon, shield disperser or virus spreader.
And big special mission only for those who save Rachni in ME1.
And option to chose between Cerberus and Alliance at the beginning of the game.
And return all squadmates and add Shiala, some batarian, Kirahee, Kal Reegar and Kail Leng to them (again al demands are form BSN)

And when fans would be finally enough satisfied?

[AlanC9]

eyezonlyii wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

durasteel wrote...
Honestly, I just wanted something good. I know a lot of people wanted a "happy ending," but I could have easily handled an ultimate sacrifice. There is something very powerful about the last full measure of a soldier's devotion.

So you want Bio to have spent more money, but you're not sure on what? .

What if had they spent it on, say, an expanded Refuse? Watch the heroic deaths of each and every squadmate, and finish with the destruction of the Normandy!

Why not? If they added refuse, they could have added another ending as well that showed undeniably Shepard living. Or explained WHY the Crucible can selectively target tech in Control, but can't distinguish between it in Destroy.

That's exactly the point. What are the actual problems that need more resources? As opposed to things that would just suck up dev time without making the "real changes" that durasteel wants?

I'd be up for the Destroy non-discrimination explanation. One or two lines of technobabble would be pretty cheap.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 décembre 2013 - 12:58 .

[dreamgazer]

JamesFaith wrote...

And when fans would be finally enough satisfied?

Only when I can let Space Hamster become the new Catalyst. 

[Deathsaurer]

It'd probably do a better job too

[eyezonlyii]

JamesFaith wrote...

eyezonlyii wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So you want Bio to have spent more money, but you're not sure on what? .

What if had they spent it on, say, an expanded Refuse? Watch the heroic deaths of each and every squadmate, and finish with the destruction of the Normandy!

Why not? If they added refuse, they could have added another ending as well that showed undeniably Shepard living. Or explained WHY the Crucible can selectively target tech in Control, but can't distinguish between it in Destroy.

And then they could add Successful refuse and conventional victory.
And IT.
And Harbinger space boss fight and Harbinger inside boss fight and TIM boss fight.
And change Catalyst for Anderson, LI, Virmire nonsurvivor, TIM, Harbinger, Avina or Vigil hologram (all demands from BSN).
And change Crucible for Klendagon canon, big solar canon, shield disperser or virus spreader.
And big special mission only for those who save Rachni in ME1.
And option to chose between Cerberus and Alliance at the beginning of the game.
And return all squadmates and add Shiala, some batarian, Kirahee, Kal Reegar and Kail Leng to them (again al demands are form BSN)

And when fans would be finally enough satisfied?

I see what you're doing, but the snowball effect isn't in play here. If they had added something to balance out Refuse, then I think people would have been appreciative. I know that some people enjoyed the original endings and the themes of sacrifice and all, but why not have an actual living, breathing Shepard for one ending? Or, in the vein of Refuse, have Shepard able to convince the Catalyst it's wrong, point out the recent peace (maybe) on Rannoch, the fact that the Geth (maybe) are helping the war, or EDI in general. Obviously, the Catalyst won't take this lying down, but the game could end with them coming to an understanding: The Reapers will leave for now, but they will return and resume their mission should a synthetic arise to threaten the galaxy. Unfortunately, they now need the power of the the Mass Relays to get back to Dark Space and this then breaks them as in all the other endings.

There, no Reapers present, Shepard is alive, broken infrastructure and there's still the option of potentially using the Reapers as a force again down the road.

[JamesFaith]

dreamgazer wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

And when fans would be finally enough satisfied?

Only when I can let Space Hamster become the new Catalyst. 

Sorry he already has role of sole survivor from parallel universe destroyed by Dark energy and secret tripple agent of Cerberus and Batarian Hegemony.

Lets don't cumulated function too much here.

[Deathsaurer]

eyezonlyii wrote...

I see what you're doing, but the snowball effect isn't in play here. If they had added something to balance out Refuse, then I think people would have been appreciative. I know that some people enjoyed the original endings and the themes of sacrifice and all, but why not have an actual living, breathing Shepard for one ending? Or, in the vein of Refuse, have Shepard able to convince the Catalyst it's wrong, point out the recent peace (maybe) on Rannoch, the fact that the Geth (maybe) are helping the war, or EDI in general. Obviously, the Catalyst won't take this lying down, but the game could end with them coming to an understanding: The Reapers will leave for now, but they will return and resume their mission should a synthetic arise to threaten the galaxy. Unfortunately, they now need the power of the the Mass Relays to get back to Dark Space and this then breaks them
as in all the other endings.

There, no Reapers present, Shepard is alive, broken infrastructure and there's still the option of potentially using the Reapers as a force again down the road.

The effect really isn't much different from the atmosphere in Control except the Reapers fix everything they broke in that ending. The only real difference is Shepard lives and the Catalyst is still in control of the Reapers instead of AI Shepard.

Modifié par Deathsaurer, 13 décembre 2013 - 01:46 .

[AlanC9]

eyezonlyii wrote...

There, no Reapers present, Shepard is alive, broken infrastructure and there's still the option of potentially using the Reapers as a force again down the road.

You think Bio didn't want the Reapers dead for good? Or controlled for good?

Actually, all of that sounds like throwing out the design intent. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 décembre 2013 - 02:03 .

[Deathsaurer]

One of the leaks did say Synthesis was the best ending so uh...