394 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Or, they disagree with what you think went wrong.

 

Is that not a possibility, and honestly more likely the truth of the situation? 

 

And one more point, is this bringing up the "artistic merit" thing again, because I don't recall anything other than the comments from Patcher regarding the fanbase, comments which honestly...have some merit to them. But he doesn't work for BioWare in the end.

Well, obviously, they disagree.  But it struck me how they seemed to be operating with the certainty of the Qun to the point where they can't seem to even comprehend why someone would dislike the endings.  The players MUST be mistaken.  It's an objective FACT that these endings were awesome!  

[LinksOcarina]

Well, obviously, they disagree.  But it struck me how they seemed to be operating with the certainty of the Qun to the point where they can't seem to even comprehend why someone would dislike the endings.  The players MUST be mistaken.  It's an objective FACT that these endings were awesome!  

 

That seems awfully hyperbolic though.

 

I can get why they wouldn't believe people would dislike the endings, but I doubt any of them said that people were objectively wrong, unless I am missing something here. 

[Iakus]

I'm probably overestimating the costs here. My approach to RPGs is all about approaching choices in-character, so watching a walkthrough first would be a big negative for me in a way it doesn't have to be for someone who thinks about shaping the story. ( And of course, with my approach it's nearly impossible for an ending to fail me the way ME3's failed you; if anything ME3 is positive because it makes it harder for me to predict the outcome of future games.)
 

 

I do think about shaping the story.  What concerns me is what sort of limitations the game puts on the kind of story I can shape.  Future games aside, what kind of story does this game allow me to play? 

 

 

 

I wasn't suggesting you disregard the possibility. The question is the percentage chance. Is it really that high?

Depends on what you figure the error is, I guess. If it's offering the player only morally-compromised choices, then yeah, that's a reasonable chance.

I would not have thought the odds were that high, no.  But as the saying goes "fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice..."  Since Mass Effect 3, I have actually passed on a few promising games due to not being willing to chance such "Artistic" outcomes in games that flirt with dark fantasy and such.

 

And it's not just the concept of "morally compromised" choices.  It's the magnitude of the choice as well.  I don't buy into "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."  

[Laughing_Man]

Or, they disagree with what you think went wrong.

 

Is that not a possibility, and honestly more likely the truth of the situation? 

 

And one more point, is this bringing up the "artistic merit" thing again, because I don't recall anything other than the comments from Patcher regarding the fanbase, comments which honestly...have some merit to them. But he doesn't work for BioWare in the end.

 

I find it... interesting that you are so quick to assume who is right and who is wrong, while ignoring a very large group of people that thinks differently,

while repeating cheap attacks that were aimed at the persons, not the arguments.

 

I bring up Walters and Hepler because that is the criticism I keep hearing. It's not constructive, it makes fans sound disgusting in the end. I know you didn't mention them, I did, to give an example of what I am talking about here.

 

And that, is that what fans would argue are unfair business practices are usually incorrect about their assertions, and then are upset by false outrages when they feel they are not in the loop 100% of the time. 

 

As for corporations...let me introduce you to CEO Craig Jelenik. You can argue he is an exception to the rule, but I would argue it fuels the assertion that it really does depend on how a corporation is manned in the end. The world is never that black and white, really. 

 

I don't know where you keep hearing about Walters and Hepler, the crushing majority of criticism on the Bioware forums has nothing to do with them.

(hell, I don't remember the last time I saw someone mentioned hepler here before you.)

You are using them as a sort of justification to... what? Ignore any and all criticism because of someone bullied someone else on the internet?

If that sounds logical to you, there is really no point in this discussion.

 

"...fans would argue are unfair business practices are usually incorrect about their assertions,..."

 

Really? According to who, you, or Bioware? (which are obviously not biased in the slightest...)

These sweeping baseless assertions and accusations are really weak.

 

I have no idea who Mr Jelenik is, and like you said yourself, this is more likely an anecdote than any kind of a broad indication.

It's less about a specific CEO (which in any case has to take into account investors, etc.) and more about the realities and dynamics of big corporations

and the realities and the kind of pressures that shape them and their workers into an as possible efficient money making machine.

 

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule, but I don't think that EA is one of these exceptions.

[Iakus]

That seems awfully hyperbolic though.

 

I can get why they wouldn't believe people would dislike the endings, but I doubt any of them said that people were objectively wrong, unless I am missing something here. 

It may be a bit hyperbolic.  But I find adding the Refuse ending with it's "Rocks fall, everyone dies" outcome.  Especially after Shepard gives a speech that had me nodding the whole time "I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate" to be incredibly passive-aggressive on their part.

 

Plus you will be hard-pressed to find any devs talking about people disliking the ending.  You'll find them talking about people who are "confused", who were "grieving" for Shepard, and yes, for those who need "closure"  But people disliking or even disagreeing with the endings?  They don't get mentioned so much.  As in, at all.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Bioware just needs to unveil the new protagonist already. People will stop talking about Shepard if we knew who the new hero is.

I doubt it. People still talk about wanting the Warden back even after two other protagonists. 

[AlanC9]

 
And it's not just the concept of "morally compromised" choices.  It's the magnitude of the choice as well.  I don't buy into "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."

Well, it's not like Bio's going to go quite that big for a while, at least not in ME.

[Iakus]

Well, it's not like Bio's going to go quite that big for a while, at least not in ME.

They did go that big in DAI.

 

The difference was they went the "safe" route for the ending.  What with being able to punch the Big Bad in the head then go home and party.

 

Which is preferable to RGB, I suppose.  but still doesn't provide the "options" which I keep saying I want.

[KaiserShep]

They did go that big in DAI.

 

The difference was they went the "safe" route for the ending.  What with being able to punch the Big Bad in the head then go home and party.

 

Which is preferable to RGB, I suppose.  but still doesn't provide the "options" which I keep saying I want.

 

I think in Inquisition's case, keeping the big outcomes fairly fixed is a good idea for the run of the series. The trilogy screwed up with the Collector Base. I wouldn't want DA to have anything like that, and I hope this game doesn't have it either, provided that it's part of a narrative that's ongoing between multiple games. 

[Iakus]

I think in Inquisition's case, keeping the big outcomes fairly fixed is a good idea for the run of the series. The trilogy screwed up with the Collector Base. I wouldn't want DA to have anything like that, and I hope this game doesn't have it either, provided that it's part of a narrative that's ongoing between multiple games. 

I wasn't referring to those choices directly (though yes, especially with Trespasser, everyone's world-states are largely the same) as I don't really mind that.  

 

But the means with which the Inquisitor deals with the Elder One.  There is no great sacrifice, no difficult choice (well, there's one, but we'll see if it amounts to anything) There's only one way to deal with him:  smack him around until he falls over.

 

It's safe, the Elder One has no redeeming qualities, and there's no reason to hold back.  Like I said, better than RGB.  But does not lend itself to much variety.

[AlanC9]

I think in Inquisition's case, keeping the big outcomes fairly fixed is a good idea for the run of the series. The trilogy screwed up with the Collector Base. I wouldn't want DA to have anything like that, and I hope this game doesn't have it either, provided that it's part of a narrative that's ongoing between multiple games.

Yeah. I wasn't clear upthread, but there's no way Bio's going to want that much divergence until they're ready to kill one of the franchises off.

[LinksOcarina]

I find it... interesting that you are so quick to assume who is right and who is wrong, while ignoring a very large group of people that thinks differently,

while repeating cheap attacks that were aimed at the persons, not the arguments.

 

 

 

Most of it is done through observation in the end.  It is not necessarily ignoring a large group of people who think differently are wrong, I am, however, dismissing assertions outright in the end because they are either uninformed, presumed in some cases, with an axe to grind, or very narrow-minded. 

 

Think of it this way. The arguments against the ending of Mass Effect 3 are one based on taste and perspective; what is subjective and what isn't, because the story and the design of the game is always subjective like any work.

 

People being mad over the interpretation the developers made is fair, but to take it to the extreme that most did is ridiculous. To presume that BioWare is purposefully sticking it to fans is ridiculous as well; that is not criticism that is sensationalism.

 

As Aristotle once said, "the mark of an educated mind can entertain a thought without accepting it." I don't accept the criticism that was said by Patcher in how he demeans people, but I also realize Patcher makes a point when he says that the complaints will make companies shoot for the middle, rather than give us something new. 

 

The language is blunt, but he has a point. A lot more games keep shooting for that middle, keep becoming less and less provoking in terms of thought and ideal, and more about money shots and simplistic approaches to prose. Should we dismiss that as a possible issue because Patcher hurt someone's feelings by calling them whiny? 

 

I guess my problem is no one is full-proof in these scenarios, no one is really in the "right" in the end. 

 

 

 

I don't know where you keep hearing about Walters and Hepler, the crushing majority of criticism on the Bioware forums has nothing to do with them.

(hell, I don't remember the last time I saw someone mentioned hepler here before you.)

You are using them as a sort of justification to... what? Ignore any and all criticism because of someone bullied someone else on the internet?

If that sounds logical to you, there is really no point in this discussion.

 

"...fans would argue are unfair business practices are usually incorrect about their assertions,..."

 

Really? According to who, you, or Bioware? (which are obviously not biased in the slightest...)

These sweeping baseless assertions and accusations are really weak.

 

I have no idea who Mr Jelenik is, and like you said yourself, this is more likely an anecdote than any kind of a broad indication.

It's less about a specific CEO (which in any case has to take into account investors, etc.) and more about the realities and dynamics of big corporations

and the realities and the kind of pressures that shape them and their workers into an as possible efficient money making machine.

 

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule, but I don't think that EA is one of these exceptions.

 

I keep bringing them up as a point because it is what is focused on. In this very thread someone said Walters is a problem and needs to go; and in a lot of threads that seems to be an attitude people have still. 

 

The justification is that the fanbase does not delve into constructive criticism most of the time. Even now, all the speculation we keep pouring into this forum, can later turn into criticism once we know what is going to happen with Andromeda; what if it is a wormhole? What if it is after the events of Mass Effect 3? People will complain, people will blame Walters for it, people will say the game is stupid with full confidence that they are right...and again, it is all on a subjective part of the game; a plot device, one that we don't really know how it will work.

 

Yeah that is a possible scenario, but I don't think I will be far-off in that prediction in some form.

 

And yes, it is according to me. But it is not without merit either. Again going back to Mass Effect 3, the argument that the ending was bad is fine, but the reaction and the frankly disgusting way the community behaved for the five months after the game was released was not. It makes the community look bad, and that is a problem. It is one thing to argue the ending was bad, it is another to curse the world and tell the developers to **** off.

 

And as I said above, since it is subjective completely, do we not take into account authorial intent here either? Iakus is right that its unlikely the Dev would say anything about the games ending at this point. But frankly, why should they? They don't agree with the populace on it so why belabor the point anymore?

 

It also doesn't help that they probably can't either; one mention and someone might go off the handle over it. So that is also a part of this "silence" in the end as well.

 

The whole point of this entire discussion is to show that it's a lot more going on than corporate shenanigans or a black and white point of view of things. There is always much more nuance in events; regardless of what we agree or disagree on; I would hope people would think like that, in the end.

[AlanC9]

It may be a bit hyperbolic.  But I find adding the Refuse ending with it's "Rocks fall, everyone dies" outcome.  Especially after Shepard gives a speech that had me nodding the whole time "I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate" to be incredibly passive-aggressive on their part.

As usual, I'll point out that this isn't a very sensible reading of the devs' intent there.

[Iakus]

Most of it is done through observation in the end.  It is not necessarily ignoring a large group of people who think differently are wrong, I am, however, dismissing assertions outright in the end because they are either uninformed, presumed in some cases, with an axe to grind, or very narrow-minded. 

 

Think of it this way. The arguments against the ending of Mass Effect 3 are one based on taste and perspective; what is subjective and what isn't, because the story and the design of the game is always subjective like any work.

 

People being mad over the interpretation the developers made is fair, but to take it to the extreme that most did is ridiculous. To presume that BioWare is purposefully sticking it to fans is ridiculous as well; that is not criticism that is sensationalism.

 

As Aristotle once said, "the mark of an educated mind can entertain a thought without accepting it." I don't accept the criticism that was said by Patcher in how he demeans people, but I also realize Patcher makes a point when he says that the complaints will make companies shoot for the middle, rather than give us something new. 

 

The language is blunt, but he has a point. A lot more games keep shooting for that middle, keep becoming less and less provoking in terms of thought and ideal, and more about money shots and simplistic approaches to prose. Should we dismiss that as a possible issue because Patcher hurt someone's feelings by calling them whiny? 

 

I guess my problem is no one is full-proof in these scenarios, no one is really in the "right" in the end. 

 

I'd say, though that ME3 is also hugely simplistic and relies more on cinematics than storytelling anyway.  That's actually part of the problem:  It tells you what to think and that these horrific "solutions" are the only way to solve this problem who's existence is already on shaky ground.  

 

And don't you dare try to deny that problem exists, or "rocks fall, everyone dies"

[Iakus]

As usual, I'll poimnt out that this isn't a very sensible reading of the devs' intent there.

What that they added a troll ending that any attempt to defy the Catalyst automatically triggers?

 

It seems pretty obvious to me.  

[Hazegurl]

It may be a bit hyperbolic.  But I find adding the Refuse ending with it's "Rocks fall, everyone dies" outcome.  Especially after Shepard gives a speech that had me nodding the whole time "I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate" to be incredibly passive-aggressive on their part.

While I agree with you I also think that anyone who expected anything more out of that refuse ending was setting themselves up for major disappointment.  BW was not going to spend extra time on gameplay and cut scenes showing Shepard defeating the Reapers anyway after the entire game sets up the Catalyst/Crucible as your Deus Ex Machina?

 

It was a great speech though and keeps in line with what Shepard has been saying since ME1. idk who that derpy fool is at the end of ME3 as he stands there and allows some robot to tell him that peace is impossible unless he loses himself to Reaper Powerz, Alter the entire galaxy into  some sort of mono race, or kill the Geth and EDI whose very existence proved him (Catalyst) wrong throughout the series. 

[Torgette]

I think it's hyperbolic to say whether the ending of ME3 is objectively bad as much as it's objectively good... it's objectively vague, and that's about it. Everything else is up to everybody else, I think fans have the right to be mad about it being vague but as for what actually happens it's hard to argue who is right and wrong.

[KC_Prototype]

People were doubting that a Mass Effect game could be good without the Normandy's least interesting character?

Quite BSing, Shepard was awesome.

[AlanC9]

What that they added a troll ending that any attempt to defy the Catalyst automatically triggers?

It seems pretty obvious to me.

You're talking about shooting the Catalyst? Yeah, Shepard being an idiot doesn't work out well. I suppose they should have just ignored that.

As for Refuse itself, Bio granted a very popular request for a particular additional RP option. That option plays out the way it ought to given the established situation. You can make a case thst Bio should have realized the tidal wave of butthurt they'd unleash by doing this, but haven't you been all-in on Bio not understanding the people who had a problem with the original endings? Isn't that cluelessness a sufficient explanation on its own, without making up actual malice?

You were here pre-EC. We talked about this plenty, and I never saw anyone take the position that adding a Refuse option would make things worse. Did you? It's sort of like the whole question of the breath clip, where the topic was typically the question of the EMS requirements, not the meaning of the clip.

[Lady Artifice]

I don't care about Shepard. I'm less open minded about leaving the Milky Way itself.

 

And that's reasonable. It's a galaxy, for heaven's sake. That it even came to this is just weird. It was one of the more down to earth sci-fi settings, that paid homage to real world movements like NASA... and yet it's more bombastic than Trek and Star Wars now. Even those couldn't depart from one galaxy (unless it was a funny Q episode or something). I thought the old setting was gonna be like.... humanity finally establishing a place in the galactic community. It was only like 30 years prior that they made first contact. And then... it's just all gone in an instant.

 

In my opinion, that instant occurred several years ago in real time, when they made the ending divergence so dramatic that it would be immensely impractical to develop a new game that adequately accounted for that distinction, particularly considering one of those options is the annihilation of intelligent life in the galaxy. I was upset about it back then, but I can't imagine how they could rectify it now. How would you, if you were in the Dev's position?

[Puddi III]

In my opinion, that instant occurred several years ago in real time, when they made the ending divergence so dramatic that it would be immensely impractical to develop a new game that adequately accounted for that distinction, particularly considering one of those options is the annihilation of intelligent life in the galaxy. I was upset about it back then, but I can't imagine how they could rectify it now. How would you, if you were in the Dev's position?

Leave refusal as a failstate ending the same as failing the suicide mission.

As for the other three



(No, not "it was all a dream"

I'm just talking about branched timelines

and wanted an excuse to post that.)

[Dantriges]

The language is blunt, but he has a point. A lot more games keep shooting for that middle, keep becoming less and less provoking in terms of thought and ideal, and more about money shots and simplistic approaches to prose.

 

Doesn´t look to me that ME 3 was the vanguard of pushing the boundaries in regard to endings or killing the protagonist and that the other game developers all look at the ending of ME and say "uhoh let´s stay in the middle." It´s not unlikely that it was the case for DA:I. We had endings with "punch bad guy, go home partying" before and we wil have them in the future and it´s nothing new that game companies often go for the safe bet with the money.

[Lady Artifice]

Leave refusal as a failstate ending the same as failing the suicide mission.

As for the other three



(No, not "it was all a dream"

I'm just talking about branched timelines

and wanted an excuse to post that.)

 

Refuse as a fail state works for me, but branched timeline just sounds like such a crazy starting place for the game, especially when factoring in synthesis. You've got tremendous aesthetic differences, plus the whole organic/machine unity angle when it comes to how every single character in the galaxy would think and behave.

 

Good vid. 

[goishen]

As for Refuse itself, Bio granted a very popular request for a particular additional RP option. That option plays out the way it ought to given the established situation. You can make a case thst Bio should have realized the tidal wave of butthurt they'd unleash by doing this, but haven't you been all-in on Bio not understanding the people who had a problem with the original endings? Isn't that cluelessness a sufficient explanation on its own, without making up actual malice?

 

 

The way that I see it, the people who want to plug their ears post-EC ending want the A-Team.   Everybody to get up, coughing, and walk away.  Even Harbinger.  They want him to get up, say, "Oh ****, I was wrong!  Here I been killing all these past civilizations for X number of millennia, holy ****!   Thanks humanity, for showing me the light!"

 

EDIT :  Harbinger :  "Dude, this is not going to go over well at the next Reaper meeting."

[Iakus]

You're talking about shooting the Catalyst? Yeah, Shepard being an idiot doesn't work out well. I suppose they should have just ignored that.
 

 

Shepard gets to be an idiot a lot.  Funny how EC happens to make that bit of idiocy doom the galaxy after a bunch of youtube videos of people showing what they think of the endings started making the rounds.

 

 

 

As for Refuse itself, Bio granted a very popular request for a particular additional RP option. That option plays out the way it ought to given the established situation. You can make a case thst Bio should have realized the tidal wave of butthurt they'd unleash by doing this, but haven't you been all-in on Bio not understanding the people who had a problem with the original endings? Isn't that cluelessness a sufficient explanation on its own, without making up actual malice?

 

Actually the "popular request" was to stand or fall based on EMS.  ANd yeah Bioware should have realized that they would unleash more "butthurt" as you so colorfully call it by introducing yet another stupidly dark ending when there was already a huge backlash over the surplus of bad endings they already provided.

 

Sure it could be general cluelessness. But just because they don't "get" why the lowbrow peons don't understand their magnificent "Art" doesn't mean they can't take umbrage at it.  So either or both is entirely likely.

 

 

You were here pre-EC. We talked about this plenty, and I never saw anyone take the position that adding a Refuse option would make things worse. Did you? It's sort of like the whole question of the breath clip, where the topic was typically the question of the EMS requirements, not the meaning of the clip.

 

Again, live or die by the resources you gathered.  Yeah, yeah "THEY CANNOT BE DEFEATED CONVENTIONALLY!!!! OH NOES!!!"  Well, you can't transform everyone's DNA with green "organic energy" either.

 

I also recall an even more popular request for showing Shepard surviving and being rescued/reunited with the Normandy.  Instead we get... well, the exact same breath clip at a lower EMS.