692 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

voteDC wrote...

I genuinely don't understand why some think it wrong that some demanded a 'better' ending.

If I've paid money for a product and I'm not happy with it, then I am sure as hell going to demand a better a one.

I knwo right?  It's especially funny when they insist that if an ending is "good or "bad" is entirely subjective.  Yet they seem to be terrified that having the option for different endings which people would find subjectively "better" would somehow make the endings they already have and like objectively "worse"

[JamesFaith]

voteDC wrote...

I genuinely don't understand why some think it wrong that some demanded a 'better' ending.

If I've paid money for a product and I'm not happy with it, then I am sure as hell going to demand a better a one.

Would you do it with book with ending you don't like? Or movie?

You can try to get money back for them, but demanding their change is simply too much.

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

Would you do it with book with ending you don't like? Or movie?

You can try to get money back for them, but demanding their change is simply too much.

Books and movies don't claim the reader or viewer has any agency over what happens.

Add importing data to sequels and you have an audience that has a vested interest in how the story turns out.

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

Books and movies don't claim the reader or viewer has any agency over what happens.

Add importing data to sequels and you have an audience that has a vested interest in how the story turns out.

Really?

What about gamebooks series like f.e. Lone Wolf?

Readers had agency over character. They were importing data to sequels. And there was audience interested in story progress.

So where is that great difference which broke traditional ownership of story and give player right to demand change in authors work?

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

iakus wrote...

Books and movies don't claim the reader or viewer has any agency over what happens.

Add importing data to sequels and you have an audience that has a vested interest in how the story turns out.

Really?

What about gamebooks series like f.e. Lone Wolf?

Readers had agency over character. They were importing data to sequels. And there was audience interested in story progress.

So where is that great difference which broke traditional ownership of story and give player right to demand change in authors work?

Are you seriously going to tell me that you were referring to game books when you were talking about books and movies?

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Really?

What about gamebooks series like f.e. Lone Wolf?

Readers had agency over character. They were importing data to sequels. And there was audience interested in story progress.

So where is that great difference which broke traditional ownership of story and give player right to demand change in authors work?

Are you seriously going to tell me that you were referring to game books when you were talking about books and movies?

Since I last checked they were books and I'm applying on them same moral policy - author is owner of story.

Is my fault that you didnť think about them when you wrote your response? 

[CronoDragoon]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
A few things. In a game that is, apparently, primarily geared towards retaking Earth the prologue fails to establish any personal or emotional connection to the planet, other than the fact that it happens to be labeled Earth. Half the people that Shepard meets are one dimentional idiots and everyone else ends up leaving with the Normandy. Anderson is too much of a seperate character and the kid was hamfisted. The mission is rushed and crammed with exposition, tutorial mechanics, grinding fights, etc that there is no time to feel anything. Which brings me to my second point.

Any Shepard that is Earthborn shouldn't have a problem with this, but besides that you have James and the kid. Now, I agree that the kid was hamfisted ("You can't help me" is the worst line in the series, bar none) but you didn't feel anything when he almost escaped and then exploded?

 I don't hear this complaint about any other planets. It seems to me a player will only care about a planet's fate if his favorite character(s) are from there and care to save it, such as Garrus and Palaven, Tali and Rannoch, Liara and Thessia. In that sense it was already too late to make the player care as much about Earth as they might have otherwise at the beginning of ME3, but perhaps more of James' dialogues could have focused on his attachment to the planet, so that the player cared enough by the end.

I really don't feel it was necessary for the player to feel emotion that Earth fell at the beginning. That wasn't the point; rather it was establishing the overwhelming threat the enemy represented and fixing the tone of the game. By the end if you don't care about Earth then yes I'd saw BW could have done more there.

For returning players (and much of this could be blamed on ME2) the exposition doesn't really answer any questions. Why is Shepard on Earth?

He surrendered to the Alliance to await the coming trial for the events in Arrival.

Why are they keeping a Reaper 'expert' around when no one believes in the Reapers?

Is that their stated reason for keeping him around?

Is Shepard under arrest, why hasn't he done anything to stop the Reapers during this time? Etc. During the mission itself there is no real sense of urgency.

In a sense he is. I'm not educated on military holding procedures but in a sense of the word he is "arrested" insofar as he is not allowed to leave. Planet arrest?

What do you expect Shepard to do besides continually wailing that the Reapers are coming?

Disagree about the sense of urgency during the mission. The mission does a fine job of establishing a frantic atmosphere, from disintegrating footholds to ship explosions to more and more Reapers landing.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 16 janvier 2014 - 05:11 .

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Really?

What about gamebooks series like f.e. Lone Wolf?

Readers had agency over character. They were importing data to sequels. And there was audience interested in story progress.

So where is that great difference which broke traditional ownership of story and give player right to demand change in authors work?

Are you seriously going to tell me that you were referring to game books when you were talking about books and movies?

Since I last checked they were books and I'm applying on them same moral policy - author is owner of story.

Is my fault that you didnť think about them when you wrote your response? 

Well, I'm not especially familiar with Lone Wolf, but if they are like Choose Your Own Adventure, I'm thinking it has choices the player can make that can lead to a variety of outcomes, both good and bad.

And I'm still wondering if you were able to type that with a straight face.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...
What do you expect Shepard to do besides continually wailing that the Reapers are coming?

Well, Garrus found a way to occupy himself...

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Is my fault that you didnť think about them when you wrote your response? 

Well, I'm not especially familiar with Lone Wolf, but if they are like Choose Your Own Adventure, I'm thinking it has choices the player can make that can lead to a variety of outcomes, both good and bad.

And I'm still wondering if you were able to type that with a straight face.

Yes I did.  It isn't first time I used this argument. And I also have some about interactive movies.

And because books and movies can be interactive to some extent and limits given by their medium same as videogames, why should interactivity in games give you different moral rights?

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
Well, Garrus found a way to occupy himself...

Garrus was not involved in an inter-species case of possible genocide, and moreover he admits to Shepard that his task force did nothing because they simply had no way of finding out more information about the Reapers. The galaxy learned what they could from Sovereign's remains, but that's about all they had.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 16 janvier 2014 - 05:38 .

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

Yes I did.  It isn't first time I used this argument. And I also have some about interactive movies.

And because books and movies can be interactive to some extent and limits given by their medium same as videogames, why should interactivity in games give you different moral rights?

Well, as I've said I am unfamiliar with interactive books outside of CYOA and a few similar titles.

And I've never heard of interactive movies.

That said, if they ever do gain mainstream popularity as video games, then yes, I'd expect the same demands will be made of them

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

Well, as I've said I am unfamiliar with interactive books outside of CYOA and a few similar titles.

And I've never heard of interactive movies.

That said, if they ever do gain mainstream popularity as video games, then yes, I'd expect the same demands will be made of them

So more popular creative work is then less rights author have?

Quite bizzare thinking.

[CronoDragoon]

Interactivity gives no special rights to the consumer. From an artistic perspective fans have no right to compel a story change. They have the right to complain and "ask" for a change, but that right isn't applicable here since this isn't about BW trampling on your right to ask.

But if listening to fan demand is seen as ultimately beneficial from a business perspective, then fan demand can have some weight. Of course, if BW judges that they will either not lose money from ignoring fan demand, or that the loss will be acceptable, or that the fan demand to not change something is greater than the demand to change it,  then we're back to square one.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 16 janvier 2014 - 05:51 .

[Chashan]

JamesFaith wrote...

Would you do it with book with ending you don't like? Or movie?

You can try to get money back for them, but demanding their change is simply too much.

About the bolded, that this did not work for many people as regards ME3 should be obvious, as not every store ran a returns-policy similar to Amazon, nor did Amazon keep that up indefinitely.

As regards the former...that's something not unheard of, really. Some viewers' dissatisfaction with the discontinuation of the Firefly-series comes to mind, although a good bit can happen on a user's end, too. Such as disregarding sequels'/later installments' existence, like the Matrix-sequels, Star Wars prequels etc.

With books, it's even easier cutting ties. I like the good Goethe's Faust. What I do not like is the, in my opinion, undeserved redemption of that character towards the very last pages. Hence, I have little problem skipping those, leaving Faust at Mephistopheles' mercy.

Modifié par Chashan, 16 janvier 2014 - 05:54 .

[CronoDragoon]

For those advocating the right to demand: what do you see as the difference between "ask for a change" and "demand a change"? No difference besides demand being a bit more forceful/resolute? I think those arguing against see some sort of legal distinction there, or perhaps corporate or moral.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 16 janvier 2014 - 05:56 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Any Shepard that is Earthborn shouldn't have a problem with this, but besides that you have James and the kid. Now, I agree that the kid was hamfisted ("You can't help me" is the worst line in the series, bar none) but you didn't feel anything when he almost escaped and then exploded?

 I don't hear this complaint about any other planets. It seems to me a player will only care about a planet's fate if his favorite character(s) are from there and care to save it, such as Garrus and Palaven, Tali and Rannoch, Liara and Thessia. In that sense it was already too late to make the player care as much about Earth as they might have otherwise at the beginning of ME3, but perhaps more of James' dialogues could have focused on his attachment to the planet, so that the player cared enough by the end.

I really don't feel it was necessary for the player to feel emotion that Earth fell at the beginning. That wasn't the point; rather it was establishing the overwhelming threat the enemy represented and fixing the tone of the game. By the end if you don't care about Earth then yes I'd saw BW could have done more there.

A lot of my problems with the prologue are from hindsight. One of the bigger problems I have with the mission is that it fails to justify why Earth is so important to the plot, other it being a rock in space with people on it. The problems facing the planet are no different than others, there's no tactical or military advantage to the planet, and there's (I think) less emotional attachment to the place than even some throw away planet like Tyvor. If the plot wasn't so focused around Earth, this wouldn't be a problem. I guess it just bothers me that the game is so geocentric without any justification for it.

Disagree about the sense of urgency during the mission. The mission does a fine job of establishing a frantic atmosphere, from disintegrating footholds to ship explosions to more and more Reapers landing.

I just don't feel it because the game play is tutorial handholding.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 16 janvier 2014 - 06:26 .

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

So more popular creative work is then less rights author have?

Quite bizzare thinking.

"Demands" was the wrong term to use.  I should have used "expectations"

If an author tells an audience they can shape the story, there will be the expectation to be able to, you know, shape the story.  Not simply be shoved aside as teh authro goes "no, you're wrong, this is how the story should end"

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

For those advocating the right to demand: what do you see as the difference between "ask for a change" and "demand a change"? No difference besides demand being a bit more forceful/resolute? I think those arguing against see some sort of legal distinction there, or perhaps corporate or moral.

Pretty much.  I mean, there's not much we can do to back demands than taking our money elsewhere.

And at this point, demanding anything for ME3 is wasted effort.  Now the concern should be for he next Mass Effect game, and the hope that somehow this IP can come out of teh shadow The Shepard Incident has cast over the IP.

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

So more popular creative work is then less rights author have?

Quite bizzare thinking.

"Demands" was the wrong term to use.  I should have used "expectations"

If an author tells an audience they can shape the story, there will be the expectation to be able to, you know, shape the story.  Not simply be shoved aside as teh authro goes "no, you're wrong, this is how the story should end"

And shaping of story was possible because every choice altered story. That it didn't shape it in way you want and didn't offer you results and choices you would prefer is something different.

Or did they say "Everyone will get their desired ending to the smallest details" ?

[Iakus]

JamesFaith wrote...

And shaping of story was possible because every choice altered story. That it didn't shape it in way you want and didn't offer you results and choices you would prefer is something different.

Or did they say "Everyone will get their desired ending to the smallest details" ?

I especially like that "smallest details" part.  It really enhances the whole "reductio ad absurdum" thing you've got going.

[AlanC9]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
A lot of my problems with the prologue are from hindsight. One of the bigger problems I have with the mission is that it fails to justify why Earth is so important to the plot, other it being a rock in space with people on it. The problems facing the planet are no different than others, there's no tactical or military advantage to the planet, and there's (I think) less emotional attachment to the place than even some throw away planet like Tyvor. If the plot wasn't so focused around Earth, this wouldn't be a problem. I guess it just bothers me that the game is so geocentric without any justification for it.

The italed always struck me as a bit bizarre. 95% or so of the human race still lives there; I can't imagine a Shepard who doesn't feel some concern about that.

[Chashan]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...


A lot of my problems with the prologue are from hindsight. One of the bigger problems I have with the mission is that it fails to justify why Earth is so important to the plot, other it being a rock in space with people on it. The problems facing the planet are no different than others, there's no tactical or military advantage to the planet, and there's (I think) less emotional attachment to the place than even some throw away planet like Tyvor. If the plot wasn't so focused around Earth, this wouldn't be a problem. I guess it just bothers me that the game is so geocentric without any justification for it.

To add to that:

My main-gripe was that the reason why Shepards are incarcerated is done through auto-dialogue, of all things. I would have greatly appreciated the wheel there, seeing how even Arrival managed to do that much, at least.

Could even have accounted for that there, to be had, and shown some development: either Shepards still stress they regret that incident in particular, or they express extreme frustration at being locked away the way they are despite having confessed as much already. Not impossible to do something similar with those Shepards who did not take part in the Arrival-incident.

Modifié par Chashan, 16 janvier 2014 - 07:15 .

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

"Demands" was the wrong term to use.  I should have used "expectations"

If an author tells an audience they can shape the story, there will be the expectation to be able to, you know, shape the story.  Not simply be shoved aside as teh authro goes "no, you're wrong, this is how the story should end"

And I think that is where the issue lies with a lot of the counter-protest.

"Demand" and "Expect" are two very different words that seem to be used interchangably, and they shouldn't be.

I can certainly understand disappointment.  I can understand a sense of betrayal.  I can even understand anger and rage (to an extent).  ME3 (and perhaps the series as a whole) did not meet your expectations, and you don't like that.  Ya know what... that's okay.  No one should tell you how you should feel, or say you're wrong to feel that way.

That is FAR different that DEMANDING something be changed to suit you.  That's simply not right; I don't care how disappointed or betrayed you feel.  Bioware doesn't have to change **** for you if they don't want to.  Don't like it?  Too bad.  That's your problem, not theirs.

If you can't accept that; then it's time to walk away.