981 réponses à ce sujet

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Personally I never had an issue with how BW "treated" their fanbase post-release. I think many fans wouldn't settle for anything less than BW saying the ending was bad, which is a stupid thing to expect. BW has in fact admitted they did some parts of the ending bad, and that they misjudged certain aspects when coming up with it, like how attached people were to the characters. But even then the fans' victim-complex takes over and they attribute negative intent that didn't exist: for example, BW saying they needed to clarify a bunch of things that they didn't make clear in the ending turns into "they are calling us stupid" or Refuse turning into a "middle finger." It's childish and precludes any motivation for BW to engage, since anything they do short of groveling will be spun against them. That's probably way I spend a lot of time defending them despite my personal belief that the original endings sucked, and that the EC only upgrades them to "mediocre."

On the other hand, I think it's absolutely fair that fans called out the disconnect between certain marketing statements and the final product. Fortunately I avoided this by doing a complete media black-out for ME3, which I usually do for any game I'm excited about.

Well, the response BioWare gave after the backlash was silence at first, and then a general attitude of "we're sorry you don't appreciate our artistic vision", which just poured from every statement the fans have managed to extract from them, whether it was a moderator on BSN or one of the Doctors in an open letter. Was it stupid to expect them to admit the ending was bad... Probably yeah, for the obvious business reasons, but this attitude was a part of what made the EC hard to take seriously.

You say this as though BioWare just slapped together the Extended Cut like it was some kind of trivial add-on, when it actually does provide a substantial amount of content to address the outcome for each of the three main decisions. Whether or not you accept this outcome is neither here or there. The red, blue, green joke that people made of the original ending was completely undone.

Disagree. The joke, as it were, which was made up out of nonsense, has been merely explained. With more nonsense. To undo it would be to remove it. Which was't going to happen, sure, but that's a different matter. As for the slapping together a trivial add-on... Well, that's debatable, to say the least. The use of slides wasn't exactly inspired, for example.

Let's be honest here. The people who were so thoroughly dissatisfied with the ending to the point of being hostile towards the devs would simply never be happy unless BioWare took everything from Priority: Earth onward and simply rewrote the entire sequence from top to bottom, got rid of the catalyst and completely changed the choices. What they wanted was a complete Alternate Ending, but that isn't really a realistic, or even a reasonable expectation. Changing or "fixing" a theme is not something one should expect something called an "extended cut" to do.

Here I agree fully. Again, you can't clarify complete nonsense. It will still be nonsense. I generally agree that whatever the EC could improve within its limitations, it did, and if everything you wanted was a sense of even remote closure for the characters, you probably got what you wanted. But thematically it doesn't fix much.

[FREEGUNNER]

It's called sloppy writing...the catalyst AI wasn't part of the original story when bioware made ME1.

[Ryriena]

I'll agree that the ending credits added more plot holes, but I also hated that my main Shepard who stayed loyal had Kaiden and James killed at the beam run. I was in shock after that, then all the stuff with Tim and glow boy. I was like what is going on.... I was in total confusion mode, so my Shepard story ends at the part where Anderson dies. She goes on to have a life without Kaiden. I was thinking it was all dream and I would wake up soon or something.... Because, I was thinking of that for the future. But nope they put the credits up after the ship crashed landed and like wait is that it? Noooo I killed my Shepard LI for that?

[AlanC9]

I'll agree that the ending credits added more plot holes, but I also hated that my main Shepard who stayed loyal had Kaiden and James killed at the beam run. I was in shock after that, then all the stuff with Tim and glow boy. I was like what is going on.... I was in total confusion mode, so my Shepard story ends at the part where Anderson dies. She goes on to have a life without Kaiden. I was thinking it was all dream and I would wake up soon or something.... Because, I was thinking of that for the future. But nope they put the credits up after the ship crashed landed and like wait is that it? Noooo I killed my Shepard LI for that?

How'd you end up with EMS that low?

[KaiserShep]

How'd you end up with EMS that low?

 

A biotic did it.

[Ryriena]

How'd you end up with EMS that low?

I didn't play MP and did not have the EC.....

[SwobyJ]

I didn't play MP and did not have the EC.....

 

That's still damn hard to manage.

[CronoDragoon]

Speaking of sadistic tendencies, personally I wanted the two companions you pick for the final run to simply die. Granted people would game the system on later playthroughs, but it'd be quite shocking the first time.

 

Yeah, if done well. The problem I had with pre-EC beam run (along with Suicide Mission deaths) is that the way they are shown has no particular impact on me. Now, I actually do think the EC scene where your two squadmates get fried by Harbinger is pretty shocking and would have been effective, with a few tweaks (I'm always a fan of cutting out audio on shocking deaths. Makes it so I can hear my own blood pumping).

 

 

Well, the response BioWare gave after the backlash was silence at first, and then a general attitude of "we're sorry you don't appreciate our artistic vision", which just poured from every statement the fans have managed to extract from them, whether it was a moderator on BSN or one of the Doctors in an open letter. Was it stupid to expect them to admit the ending was bad... Probably yeah, for the obvious business reasons, but this attitude was a part of what made the EC hard to take seriously.

 

They stood by certain aspects of their ending and changed others. If you had read Ray's letter without looking to be insulted, he actually makes it very clear that they want to compromise between keeping the core of their idea (which the people in charge clearly stood by) and listening to fan complaints (which they did).

 

There is nothing wrong with BioWare standing behind the core of their ending, either for financial reasons (totally redoing the ending for free? unlikely) or artistic ones. And I have the right to criticize them for the content of the endings, which I did. But this whole "Bioware insulted the fans" business because they didn't 1) redo the endings or 2) admit the endings sucked, is something I simply can't get behind.

[Iakus]

 

They stood by certain aspects of their ending and changed others. If you had read Ray's letter without looking to be insulted, he actually makes it very clear that they want to compromise between keeping the core of their idea (which the people in charge clearly stood by) and listening to fan complaints (which they did).

 

There is nothing wrong with BioWare standing behind the core of their ending, either for financial reasons (totally redoing the ending for free? unlikely) or artistic ones. And I have the right to criticize them for the content of the endings, which I did. But this whole "Bioware insulted the fans" business because they didn't 1) redo the endings or 2) admit the endings sucked, is something I simply can't get behind.

 

If they said they couldn't change the endings for financial reasons, that would have been one thing.

 

But their entire attitude towards the ending debacle and EC shows me they simply don't get why people didn't like the endings, and that they are frankly resentful that it wasn't lauded.  Despite all the seriously troubling issues both with the endings themselves and the railroaded nature of them, we only got a DLC that tells us "no, they were good endings, shut up".  

 

Aside from Alan Schumacher (who isn't even on the Mass Effect team) I saw no one actively looking for feedback.  Instead we get interviews where the Mass Effect game is compared to a freaking tv series where the audience passively watches the character wreck their world and then die, and act like the comparison is a good thing!  And this is the same guy who tweeted "These are your Shepards"

 

And it's somehow surprising that people feel like they were insulted?  Really?

 

If the franchise is to go forward, they're going to have to admit, at least to themselves, that there were many serious screw-ups that damaged not only the franchise name itself, but their relationship with their base.

[CronoDragoon]

And it's somehow surprising that people feel like they were insulted?  Really?

 

I don't recall saying it was surprising. I do recall saying it was part of a victim-complex, though.

 

If the franchise is to go forward, they're going to have to admit, at least to themselves, that there were many serious screw-ups that damaged not only the franchise name itself, but their relationship with their base.

 

If they did admit it to themselves, how would you know?

 

Any questions you may have about "lessons learned" will be answered by ME4 and nothing else.

[KaiserShep]

If the franchise is to go forward, they're going to have to admit, at least to themselves, that there were many serious screw-ups that damaged not only the franchise name itself, but their relationship with their base.

 

Well if they only admit it to themselves, we'd never really know it, now will we?

 

But to us, they don't really need to admit any such thing. If the franchise is to go forward, they simply need to make a great game.

[Iakus]

 

If they did admit it to themselves, how would you know?

 

Well, they'd probably stop saying people were "confused" over the endings.   Or how the endings were just perfect because somebody somewhere liked it.

[CronoDragoon]

Well, they'd probably stop saying people were "confused" over the endings.   Or how the endings were just perfect because somebody somewhere liked it.

 

But people were confused over the endings. Like, REALLY confused. As for the second part, I don't recall them saying that.

[Big Bad]

Just out of curiousity (and since it's sort of on topic), is that statement that came out shortly after ME3 was released where Patrick Weekes allegedly slammed the ending and the way that Walters and Hudson handled it generally considered to be legit?  I feel like I remember him denying it, but I also see it dredged up every now and then, so I've never been clear on how much weight people put into that statement. 

[CronoDragoon]

Just out of curiousity (and since it's sort of on topic), is that statement that came out shortly after ME3 was released where Patrick Weekes allegedly slammed the ending and the way that Walters and Hudson handled it generally considered to be legit?  I feel like I remember him denying it, but I also see it dredged up every now and then, so I've never been clear on how much weight people put into that statement. 

 

Chris Priestly asked Patrick about it, and he firmly denied it.

 

 

....that being said, the post makes a lot of sense based on what we know, and is actually pretty generous and complimenting of Mac and Casey while at the same time saying that it's pretty much their fault that the ending was bad; in other words, the type of rant about a coworker that you don't mind or even like but did something that made you rage. And it would also make sense for Patrick to deny that he wrote it and that someone hacked his account instead. Considering all this I personally believe it's true.

 

As for whether it's generally considered legit, on the BSN probably yes, but I doubt a poll was ever done or anything like that.

[ShadowLordXII]

They stood by certain aspects of their ending and changed others. If you had read Ray's letter without looking to be insulted, he actually makes it very clear that they want to compromise between keeping the core of their idea (which the people in charge clearly stood by) and listening to fan complaints (which they did).

 

There is nothing wrong with BioWare standing behind the core of their ending, either for financial reasons (totally redoing the ending for free? unlikely) or artistic ones. And I have the right to criticize them for the content of the endings, which I did. But this whole "Bioware insulted the fans" business because they didn't 1) redo the endings or 2) admit the endings sucked, is something I simply can't get behind.

 

Good old artistic integrity.

 

The simple reason why this isn't a valid "defense" is because artistic integrity is not something that can be used to "defend" a product. Artistic Integrity is where an artist feels personal pride regarding their product and the work that they put into it, regardless of outside criticism. Even admitting that they didn't do the best possible job with their project doesn't demean from this integrity because the artist presumably worked to the best of their ability. In fact, it's more mature and strong for one's integrity when they admit making a mistake and do better next time.

 

What BW was doing was saying that they're going to ignore all criticism and present more of the same stuff that 90% of folks hated. The same folks who all hated the ending for varying reasons and wanted a different one, not the same ending only "clarified for better closure". Bioware just ignores all of them and bullrushes through to doing their own thing, then they bring up "artistic integrity" as a defense against criticism or the overwhelmingly negative and justified reactions to the last 10 minutes of the game. If you have to bring up "artistic integrity" to defend yourself, then you not only undermine your actual artistic integrity, but you also make it appear less mature as an artist.

 

Joel Schmacher made a terrible movie known as Batman and Robin. But no one really bashes him about it because he admits that it was a terrible movie and apologized to any batman fan who was disappointed.

 

The Directors of the Matrix films actually included a rifftrax of three critics tearing apart their film in one of their special edition releases of the films.

 

Even George Lucas, infamous for his needless and pointless re-re-re-re-releases of the Star Wars movies, admitted in 2005 that he sucked at writing dialogue. He also took the proceeds from his selling of Star Wars to Disney and donated all of it to charity. Say what you will about his ability as a story teller or a director, but the man has a respectable degree of integrity.

 

That's why people were/are pissed off with Bioware about their "Clarity and Closure" route. They felt like BW was belittling them and acting like they never mattered at all despite multiple statements to the contrary. They felt like BW was looking down at them with a condescending and pretentious posture as if they really believed that what they were doing was right despite all evidence to the contrary. Add to the fact that BW stated that they were listening to fan feedback and then acts in a way that most people would hate indicates that they were lying right to the fan's faces. Add in that there were too many fundamental problems with the ending for "clarity and closure" to actually work (hence the point of this topic), makes BW appear to be idiots who are unable to admit that they made a mistake or even see that they made one despite this being clear to most observers.

 

It's the equivalent of going to a restaurant and finding maggots in your stew. But when you try to demand a refund or send the dish back, the waitress acts like you're the problem and shoves the same dish in your face with less maggots. But I didn't want any maggots in my stew damn it! Maggots are disgusting and it isn't at all compatible with my stew. Why are you giving me something that's disgusting and doesn't match with my order at all?

 

And because BW followed this path, almost everyone loses. The people who wanted a new ending didn't win; they just got more of the same stuff that they didn't like and a good portion of them will probably boycott future BW products. BW didn't win either; instead of clearing up the backlash, they just poured more fuel on the fire and the remaining fallout will likely haunt the potential of future products for several years into the near-future. The only people who actually won in this scenario are the clear minority of people who liked or were satisfied with the ending; Though I'm certain that even a lot of them will admit that the ending could've been much better.

[CronoDragoon]

Good old artistic integrity.

 

The simple reason why this isn't a valid "defense" is because artistic integrity is not something that can be used to "defend" a product.

 

Seems to me like the issue is people interpreting artistic integrity as a defense when, as you say, it's not.

 

I'm not going to defend the way I grill hamburgers to anyone. This is the way I like to cook them, but maybe I could use a different type of cheese for you? (Joke, I know it's not a sound analogy)

[SwobyJ]

Artistic integrity would have worked better if they brought with it an addressing of the numerous quotes people know of them that say things that appear to be the opposite of what we saw on the screen. Without doing so, they've only allowed rumors about them to gain credence - especially the "No A, B, or C ending" thing.

 

Without an explanation of the content, using those words 'artistic integrity' (in any form - literal or heavily implicit), just makes you look empty to observers. It's like, okay, you want to keep the integrity... now why? What of this is integral? But instead they go to 'it will speak for itself', which is largely a non-answer in this situational context.

 

~~~

 

Personally?

-I think it does speak for itself, actually. I've decided what I think is there, and will wait and see if I'm correct. If I am, then I'll be incredibly happy and respectful of the series. If I'm not, then whatever, I hope they make a great game, and I'll see if I want to pay to play it.

-I believe they reserve the right to artistic integrity. I think it is their communication plan that can be quite backasswards.

-I like to hope that they have a core long term plan here, and that we're only allowed to see one step of it, and that the plan's integrity depends on us not knowing the future yet - nor the proper context in which to view the franchise overall.

[Mcfly616]

Thing is, they never said the words 'artistic integrity'.

[CronoDragoon]

Thing is, they never said the words 'artistic integrity'.

 

Technically yes, but in the context of finding a middle ground with the fans, not as a simple "slamming doors" as some folks like to portray.

 

From Ray's open letter:

 

"Building on their research, Exec Producer Casey Hudson and the team are hard at work on a number of game content initiatives that will help answer the questions, providing more clarity for those seeking further closure to their journey. You’ll hear more on this in April.  We’re working hard to maintain the right balance between the artistic integrity of the original story while addressing the fan feedback we’ve received.  This is in addition to our existing plan to continue providing new Mass Effect content and new full games, so rest assured that your journey in the Mass Effect universe can, and will, continue."

[Mcfly616]

People make it out to be a defense when all he was saying was that they were staying true to their vision whilst incorporating fan feedback. They did both things. Whether it's to someone's liking, depends solely on that person.

[AlanC9]

I didn't play MP and did not have the EC.....

 

All that means is that you don't get the breath clip.

[SwobyJ]

They never explained what was so integral in the original story. Usually when artistic integrity is mentioned in this way, it is in reference to something specific - whether a theme, event, or otherwise.

 

It's like in Spec Ops: The Line:

Spoiler

Keeping artistic integrity to the original story would be in never changing from the vision of keeping the scenario vague. We don't know what perception in that game is correct or not, and even who we're really playing as. Theories abound, but we can't be absolutely sure. If they broke their integrity, the developers would have moved away from that, and just made things clear and thus boring and unintriguing.

 

But the developers still made sure to explain what they could after release. They didn't sit on their hands and leave the game to speak for itself. Sometimes the artist's opinion is important or at least helpful to optionally use in understanding the art. It's a shame imo that Bioware didn't send out controlled statements that may help us in understanding why they chose to make things in the game what they were. We have barely anything in that regard.

 

That being said, I personally  take the Citadel DLC as a 'hold on, we'll help you later in this' message. Almost no one else does though, so *shrug*.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

They stood by certain aspects of their ending and changed others. If you had read Ray's letter without looking to be insulted, he actually makes it very clear that they want to compromise between keeping the core of their idea (which the people in charge clearly stood by) and listening to fan complaints (which they did).

There is nothing wrong with BioWare standing behind the core of their ending, either for financial reasons (totally redoing the ending for free? unlikely) or artistic ones. And I have the right to criticize them for the content of the endings, which I did. But this whole "Bioware insulted the fans" business because they didn't 1) redo the endings or 2) admit the endings sucked, is something I simply can't get behind.

I looked up Ray's letter again. It is the definition of corporate newspeak. Or grass-speak (I don't know if it'a term used in English language, but it fits ever so well.

Aside from all else, the artistic vision/integrity argument was reduced to smithereens when they, you know, actually did change the ending? They retconned the mass relays exploding, making them damaged only and they added a scene where Normandy takes off from the surreal jungle planet, making it crashing there in the first place so utterly pointless it's funny.

The financial standpoint is completely understandable. The risk for sales of future games was compared with the cost of making a free DLC which fixes everything it can without actually scrapping the whole ending and doing it from scratch, and they went with the latter.

I never said at BioWare insulted their fans by not doing 1) or 2). BioWare insulted their fans by treating them like idiots. ShadowLord has cleaned up the subject a few posts above.

[Iakus]

But people were confused over the endings. Like, REALLY confused. As for the second part, I don't recall them saying that.

 

http://www.complex.c...er-white-moment

 

To be fair, I get people, especially at the Cons, who will say, “I loved it. It was heart-wrenching, but I felt it was right for my Shepard.” And to me, that’s why it was the right path. But because there was no choice, it was going to be right for some people, and for others, in the middle, and other people were obviously very upset about it. In hindsight, I don’t think there was anything we would have changed about that, but it is a really good lesson learned.