629 réponses à ce sujet

[Farangbaa]

Curious that your definition explicitly uses the term "feature complete."

 

Curious how you don't seem to understand what 'pre' or 'before' means

[Dreamer]

Curious how you don't seem to understand what 'pre' or 'before' means

 

My apologies, I got lost in the thread.

 

EDIT - What this means, however, is that BioWare was using footage of a game that did not exist to hype journos to generate buzz. Fantastic ethics.

[Farangbaa]

My apologies, I got lost in the thread.

 

EDIT - What this means, however, is that BioWare was using footage of a game that did not exist to hype journos to generate buzz. Fantastic ethics.

 

Err, what it means is they were showing people what they were working on. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

And that really shouldn't be so hard to understand having just been given the definition of alpha.

[LinksOcarina]

My apologies, I got lost in the thread.

 

EDIT - What this means, however, is that BioWare was using footage of a game that did not exist to hype journos to generate buzz. Fantastic ethics.

 

Has nothing to do with ethics. The game did exist. The footage is simply changed. Got to remember what I said, before, this is a constant creation going on because the game is unfinished. 

 

What I said months ago in another thread below.

 

I remember Fable 3, when it was first announced, was all about holding hands as a mechanic to guide people through quests and to get closer to them in the game, so you can have a connection with them. Yet the implementation of that mechanic was barely used in the game, most of it was cut out.

 

Features and gameplay get changed, refined, removed all the damn time. The only sin is they showed people stuff first, when they didn't have to to begin with, and everyone always assumes what they show you will be present in the final product. 

 

This is happens all the time in other forms of commercial media as well. Extended LPs, alternative takes and scenes cut from trailers, extended editions on DVDs. All of this is what they cut and no one bats an eye, even if the scene was shown to you in a commercial before as well. 

 

Another example, here is the Zelda demo for the Wii U in 2012.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=u_fyOkrteqM

 

And the Zelda demo in 2014. 

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=XZmxvig1dXE

 

Obviously a lot has changed And Nintendo does that ALL THE TIME. Here is a compilation of Beta footage from Ocarina of Time as an example. Some of this beta footage "misled" folks in thinking aspects of the game were hidden, like the Triforce is somewhere in the game to find or the Unicorn Fountain is hiding under a rock somewhere. The Alpha and Beta labels are put on by us, but based on the final products, its completely different and showcases different mechanics and even scenes! 

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=0aVXUJFje2E

 

That was the mid 90's. So are you really going to complain at this point? I would figure you would all be used to it by now, or at the very least understand how commercial art is made. I can go down a list of games that change over time, how they look completely different from their initial footage to the final product. It's how the gaming industry works in the end folks. 

[Dreamer]

Err, what it means is they were showing people what they were working on. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Journalists. Why do you demonstrate something to journalists?

[Dreamer]

Has nothing to do with ethics. The game did exist. The footage is simply changed. 

 

I remember Fable 3, when it was first announced, was all about holding hands as a mechanic to guide people through quests and to get closer to them in the game, so you can have a connection with them. Yet the implementation of that mechanic was barely used in the game, most of it was cut out.

 

Features and gameplay get changed, refined, removed all the damn time. The only sin is they showed people stuff first, when they didn't have to to begin with, and everyone always assumes what they show you will be present in the final product. 

 

This is happens all the time in other forms of commercial media as well. Extended LPs, alternative takes and scenes cut from trailers, extended editions on DVDs. All of this is what they cut and no one bats an eye, even if the scene was shown to you in a commercial before as well. 

 

Another example, here is the Zelda demo for the Wii U in 2012.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=u_fyOkrteqM

 

And the Zelda demo in 2014. 

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=XZmxvig1dXE

 

Obviously a lot has changed And Nintendo does that ALL THE TIME. Here is a compilation of Beta footage from Ocarina of Time as an example. Some of this beta footage "misled" folks in thinking aspects of the game were hidden, like the Triforce is somewhere in the game to find or the Unicorn Fountain is hiding under a rock somewhere. The Alpha and Beta labels are put on by us, but based on the final products, its completely different and showcases different mechanics and even scenes! 

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=0aVXUJFje2E

 

That was the mid 90's. So are you really going to complain at this point? I would figure you would all be used to it by now, or at the very least understand how commercial art is made. I can go down a list of games that change over time, how they look completely different from their initial footage to the final product. It's how the gaming industry works in the end folks. 

 

Do you know what the really big difference is these days, though? The ubiquity of pre-ordering; selling games before they're released based on the "promise" alone.

[DragonRacer]

Can I just point out that there were, like, an overwhelming number of YouTube videos showing hours of gameplay from many different authors that BioWare had brought in, simply to showcase a really good idea of what the finished product would be like? I mean, it was a LOT and it was the weeks heading into launch.

 

That trumped anything pre-alpha for me, honestly.

 

I really can't reiterate this ^^^ enough.

 

How was that not enough to properly represent what the game IN ITS FINAL FORM would look like/play? Plenty of time to cancel those preorders if you were unhappy with the turn of direction.

[Farangbaa]

Journalists. Why do you demonstrate something to journalists?

 

To show what you're working on.

 

You expect them, being in the industry and all, to get across what pre alpha means. But since this rarely happens (2 minutes of footage from ME4 and journalists start making claims about what's in the game and what's not, even going as far as predicting parts of the story) we'll see this happen less, and less, until it doesn't anymore.

[Medhia_Nox]

At this point, those who are displeased feel like the kind of people that eat an entire meal at a restaurant and then say that it was unsatisfying.

 

The game has been out for a while now, the team that works on it isn't probably even in the design stages of DA 4 - they are probably designing DLC or maybe even an XP... and if that is the case, they're not going to remake the game to make it like DA:O or DA:2 or Balder's Gate or whatever perfect game that lives behind the rose colored glasses of gamers.  And the ME and other teams probably don't spend copious amounts of time lurking here and ME 4 already seems to have it's style anyway if early comments are to be believed.

 

Saying a complaint once "can be" valid criticism... sticking around to endlessly complain about the same topic over and over - technically is harassment.

 

NOTE: I'm aware there are likely new people finishing the game all the time... and it should be obvious that I'm not talking about those people.  However, they'll likely become the people I'm talking about if they linger to endlessly repeat the same complaints endlessly.

[LinksOcarina]

Do you know what the really big difference is these days, though? The ubiquity of pre-ordering; selling games before they're released based on the "promise" alone.

 

Two problems with that.

 

One, pre-orders still existed back in the 1990s, it was just not as prevalent as it was now because of the incentives and DLC content. 

 

Two, the promises back then were all promotional tools from outlets. Screenshots and videos you were able to see always did change as well. So those differences are minute, and again, have nothing to do with ethics or appropriation of what you see.

 

Simply put, the "promise" is still a promise. This is why I bet BioWare was very reluctant to show off anything, because of such grossly misappropriated assertions. 

 

And honestly from a legal standpoint, this argument is completely moot because of the label itself. They told folks that things can change, and it did. Now not liking what was changed is fine, but you can't claim things are ethical or not, that's disingenuous to the truth of the matter. 

[Dreamer]

I really can't reiterate this ^^^ enough.

 

How was that not enough to properly represent what the game IN ITS FINAL FORM would look like/play? Plenty of time to cancel those preorders if you were unhappy with the turn of direction.

 

Because unless a feature is announced to have been axed, there's no reason to believe it won't make it into the live release. It's possible for reviewers to miss things (which they did with Inquisition) and create an impression that expected features exist where they don't.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

 

It is my sincere hope that BioWare does away with this function. It is dumb and ridiculous.

 

Lock, or do not lock. there is no try.

 

Or, to put it another way, if the subject matter of a thread is making you concerned, have a mod post in the thread to explain why. Don't put a label on the thread chastising people for posting in it that is going to accomplish no more than to draw attention to the thread.

[Lewie]

I am trying to think of the game trailers I have watched, compared to pre-release footage.

 

Few and far between, and yet all people do is still complain.

 

I guess next time I go to subway I should complain if I have too much lettuce. My sub was marketed wrong. God forbid if I get mayo on my hands heads will roll.

 

Also never buy a chip butty and ask for vinegar, one third of your bap RUINED. 

 

So many lies I can't cope.

[Farangbaa]

It is my sincere hope that BioWare does away with this function. It is cowardly, dumb, and ridiculous.

 

Lock, or do not lock. there is not try.

 

Or, to put it another way, if the subject matter of a thread is making you concerned, have a mod post in the thread to explain why. Don't put a label on the thread chastising people for posting in it that is going to accomplish no more than to draw attention to the thread.

 

Hell, for people with malicious intents, it's probably more of an encouragement than a detterrent.

[DragonAgeLegend]

I've never seen this warning before, interesting.

[Elhanan]

It is my sincere hope that BioWare does away with this function. It is cowardly, dumb, and ridiculous.
 
Lock, or do not lock. there is not try.
 
Or, to put it another way, if the subject matter of a thread is making you concerned, have a mod post in the thread to explain why. Don't put a label on the thread chastising people for posting in it that is going to accomplish no more than to draw attention to the thread.

If it was mandatory, I might agree, as posters could use it as a feature to lock undesired threads. But since it simply makes all the mods aware of a problem, it is much like noting possible troubles at restaurants, hotels, police, etc of such guests, and they have already been warned.

[Scofield]

Lost count the amount of rubbish movies ive watched where the trailer sucked me in cause it was,to put it bluntly,awesome

 

Lost count of amount of books of read cause the back or inside cover description sounds awesome

 

Lost count many meals i've had cause the packaging makes it look awesome

 

Lost count amount of games i've played that suck cause, to put it bluntly, the trailer was awesome

 

Lost count of basically the amount of things i have bought that look/sounds/read great because of advertisement, but are in fact really rubbish

 

yip i been suckered alot and well i dont think it will end until im dead tbh, it no just publishers of games that do it, it be every product that gets sold on this planet that does it, just turns out there be some crackers that live up to the hype regardless of the product involved.

 

Now if you wannae act all naive about this "pre-alpha" footage then so be it, could BioWare have handled it better? sure i guess but then so could every company that is in existence  have handled a product that "never lived upto one of there consumers ideal of it"

 

Now im against things being shown that dont make the final cut, i abhor it, but well sheet happens an tbh BioWare aint at fault for this one although again they could have said something, but they aint the first an they wont be the last

[Dreamer]

Two problems with that.

 

One, pre-orders still existed back in the 1990s, it was just not as prevalent as it was now because of the incentives and DLC content. 

 

Two, the promises back then were all promotional tools from outlets. Screenshots and videos you were able to see always did change as well. So those differences are minute, and again, have nothing to do with ethics or appropriation of what you see.

 

Simply put, the "promise" is still a promise. This is why I bet BioWare was very reluctant to show off anything, because of such grossly misappropriated assertions. 

 

And honestly from a legal standpoint, this argument is completely moot because of the label itself. They told folks that things can change, and it did. Now not liking what was changed is fine, but you can't claim things are ethical or not, that's disingenuous to the truth of the matter. 

 

I clearly qualified with "ubiquity." Pre-order is part of the culture of gaming now and it's prevalence today is unmatched by any point in the industry's history.

 

The speed at which information disseminated back then meant that it was far easier to remain objective about a game's development (though mistakes did happen). The instantaneous news cycle of the day is both a blessing and a curse--one exploited by clever marketing.

 

I don't have the direct quote handy, but I recall someone from the team at BioWare stating how they were going to be much more careful this time around with what information they released precisely because of the situation we're discussing here now. What happened? Marketing.

 

Law /= ethics. It's not disingenuous to suggest that it would be unethical if BioWare consciously made a decision not to inform consumers of features which would not make it into the live game (since we know BioWare was aware of the "leaked" videos).

[Dreamer]

I am trying to think of the game trailers I have watched, compared to pre-release footage.

 

Few and far between, and yet all people do is still complain.

 

I guess next time I go to subway I should complain if I have too much lettuce. My sub was marketed wrong. God forbid if I get mayo on my hands heads will roll.

 

Also never buy a chip butty and ask for vinegar, one third of your bap RUINED. 

 

So many lies I can't cope.

 

If you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, the door is that way. No need for the snark or straw men.

[Isaidlunch]

Has anyone mentioned the Redcliffe demo yet? That certainly implied things that turned out not to be true e.g.

 

Spoiler

[Elhanan]

I clearly qualified with "ubiquity." Pre-order is part of the culture of gaming now and it's prevalence today is unmatched by any point in the industry's history.
 
The speed at which information disseminated back then meant that it was far easier to remain objective about a game's development (though mistakes did happen). The instantaneous news cycle of the day is both a blessing and a curse--one exploited by clever marketing.
 
I don't have the direct quote handy, but I recall someone from the team at BioWare stating how they were going to be much more careful this time around with what information they released precisely because of the situation we're discussing here now. What happened? Marketing.
 
Law /= ethics. It's not disingenuous to suggest that it would be unethical if BioWare consciously made a decision not to inform consumers of features which would not make it into the live game (since we know BioWare was aware of the "leaked" videos).

And as I recall, Bioware did shut down some footage taken from other locations, but they cannot control the internet. It may be your call to blame Bioware, but I certainly am not going to do so.

[Hazegurl]

Because unless a feature is announced to have been axed, there's no reason to believe it won't make it into the live release. It's possible for reviewers to miss things (which they did with Inquisition) and create an impression that expected features exist where they don't.

I agree with you but I'm on the fence about it too. Sure certain things are shown in pre Alpha that will get cut and unless announced it's perfectly reasonable to expect the features to be there, but BW is not at fault for the things journalists write. Buuuuut they are a company trying to sell a product and when I look at it that way, there is no such thing as purely innocent intentions with showing their footage to journalists. It's marketing, and hype building and they knew the info would get "leaked".  While I don't believe it is deceptive I don't believe it is cluelessness either.  I still haven't forgotten the blatant lie told just two or three weeks before release that "Your choice to send Leliana into Redcliffe will affect your relationship with her."

[Dreamer]

I agree with you but I'm on the fence about it. Sure certain things are shown in pre Alpha that will get cut and unless announced it's perfectly reasonable to expect the features to be there, but BW is not at fault for the things journalists write. Buuuuut they are a company trying to sell a product and when I look at it that way, there is no such thing as purely innocent intentions with showing their footage to journalists. It's marketing, and hype building and they knew the info would get "leaked".  While I don't believe it is deceptive I don't believe it is cluelessness either.  I still haven't forgotten the blatant lie told just two or three weeks before release that "Your choice to send Leliana into Redcliffe will affect your relationship with her."

 

That's basically what I'm saying, yes.

 

However, I don't think they lied about anything. I'm of the school of thought that believes withholding the truth is not the same as distorting it. I don't think BioWare set out to show pre-alpha footage they knew was false; my claim is that they showed features they believed would make it to launch, to journalists (who would in turn generate hype and buzz among their readers/watchers) who were clearly influenced by what they saw, but then BioWare abdicated their responsibility when they were not transparent once they were aware of which features would not make it to launch.

[LinksOcarina]

I clearly qualified with "ubiquity." Pre-order is part of the culture of gaming now and it's prevalence today is unmatched by any point in the industry's history.

 

The speed at which information disseminated back then meant that it was far easier to remain objective about a game's development (though mistakes did happen). The instantaneous news cycle of the day is both a blessing and a curse--one exploited by clever marketing.

 

I don't have the direct quote handy, but I recall someone from the team at BioWare stating how they were going to be much more careful this time around with what information they released precisely because of the situation we're discussing here now. What happened? Marketing.

 

Law /= ethics. It's not disingenuous to suggest that it would be unethical if BioWare consciously made a decision not to inform consumers of features which would not make it into the live game (since we know BioWare was aware of the "leaked" videos).

 

But the assertion itself is disingenuous because again this has little to do any form of ethical behavior. BioWare doesn't really have to tell us anything, other than what content they want to share.

 

Which they did. The vignettes we kept seeing about gameplay features and companions, the public videos that we saw, did they lie in any form about those, or were those features in the game?

 

A 24/7 news cycle should make you more aware of such changes too. I didn't expect Inquisition to look the same when I first saw it, and it didn't. This also includes characters and features cut for time and changing aspects of the game as it goes forward. The big problem with that cycle is were more savvy to those changes; we noticed the Crestwood mission was cut in the end because of that leaked video.Otherwise we wouldn't even know it exists, of course. 

 

But it certainly wasn't a reason for objectivity. In fact id argue we can far more objective now than before. I think people are aware of marketing and the role it plays more now than before, were all a bit more aware of it, and we should be able to make choices from that. 

 

I don't know, I feel like in the end this entire discussion is a moot point. Regardless of the opinions put forth here, a question of ethics has little to do with this whole conversation. You want unethical behavior, what Gearbox did with Aliens: Colonial Marines is a perfect example because the public demo given to both journalists and consumers was completely different from the final product. That is a real issue of ethical practices that should be investigated and talked about more than this, if you ask me.

 

Mainly because that's a real problem moreso than pre-alpha footage. 

[Dreamer]

But the assertion itself is disingenuous because again this has little to do any form of ethical behavior. BioWare doesn't really have to tell us anything, other than what content they want to share.

 

Which they did. The vignettes we kept seeing about gameplay features and companions, the public videos that we saw, did they lie in any form about those, or were those features in the game?

 

A 24/7 news cycle should make you more aware of such changes too. I didn't expect Inquisition to look the same when I first saw it, and it didn't. This also includes characters and features cut for time and changing aspects of the game as it goes forward. The big problem with that cycle is were more savvy to those changes; we noticed the Crestwood mission was cut in the end because of that leaked video.Otherwise we wouldn't even know it exists, of course. 

 

But it certainly wasn't a reason for objectivity. In fact id argue we can far more objective now than before. I think people are aware of marketing and the role it plays more now than before, were all a bit more aware of it, and we should be able to make choices from that. 

 

I don't know, I feel like in the end this entire discussion is a moot point. Regardless of the opinions put forth here, a question of ethics has little to do with this whole conversation. You want unethical behavior, what Gearbox did with Aliens: Colonial Marines is a perfect example because the public demo given to both journalists and consumers was completely different from the final product.

 

That we disagree on what constitutes a breach of ethics does not make the conversation itself moot. I think this is an incredibly important discussion to have--especially because of examples like Aliens: Colonial Marines. We're dealing with an industry that is no stranger to a breach of ethics or trust.

 

EDIT - To add: You and I (and the others participating here) may be more savvy than the average consumer, but they are the reason legal protections exist, after all. I was not duped by the PAX video leak. I was duped by the keep customization videos (which were not pre-alpha material). I'm happy with Inquisition, over all, though I am extremely disappointed by BioWare's lack of community management and post-launch support for the game. My issue here is that developers have a responsibility to be open and transparent because this is an industry currently driven by pre-purchases.