3588 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

That doesn't actually respond to my statement.
 
If the writers are suppose to do one job and someone else steps in and prevents them from doing it. Who's fault is it?

First, you don't know, nor do I, that EA rushed the game. You don't know (nor do I) what level of involvement EA had in the actual writing of the game. Even if EA did rush the game, that doesn't mean the final output (pre-EC) was that far from what the original vision of the ending was. I can't answer your question without additional information. That's what an assumption is.

[AlanC9]

It doesn't even make sense to say that EA rushed the game, since it's known to have had an extension over the original timeframe. If Bio botched the execution so badly that they needed even more time, that's on them rather than EA.

[gothpunkboy89]

First, you don't know, nor do I, that EA rushed the game. You don't know (nor do I) what level of involvement EA had in the actual writing of the game. Even if EA did rush the game, that doesn't mean the final output (pre-EC) was that far from what the original vision of the ending was. I can't answer your question without additional information. That's what an assumption is.

 

Yet players go by the assumption the pre EC was exactly how Bioware wanted to end the game.Using the ending as proof that they didn't know what they were doing when they did the story for ME 3.

 

So the entire basis of the bandwagon for jumping on Bioware and particularly when anyone brings up the events that happened pre EC it is based on an assumption. But as seems to be common the assumptions they make are correct while the assumption someone else makes is wrong.

 

http://www.cracked.c...ideo-games.html

[gothpunkboy89]

It doesn't even make sense to say that EA rushed the game, since it's known to have had an extension over the original timeframe. If Bio botched the execution so badly that they needed even more time, that's on them rather than EA.

 

Question. Have you ever worked on creating a video game before? How much experience do you have in the realm of video game creation? Because the issue I gain with statements like that is people who aren't in the same business have no idea what can, does and might go on.  People make a ton of assumptions about many things. Only very few are correct.  Placing blame without knowing everything that went on doesn't solve anything.

[Monica21]

Yet players go by the assumption the pre EC was exactly how Bioware wanted to end the game.Using the ending as proof that they didn't know what they were doing when they did the story for ME 3.

Why wouldn't we? Here's another quote from the apology: As co-founder and GM of BioWare, I’m very proud of the ME3 team; I personally believe Mass Effect 3 is the best work we’ve yet created.
 
And then later: I believe passionately that games are an art form, and that the power of our medium flows from our audience, who are deeply involved in how the story unfolds, and who have the uncontested right to provide constructive criticism. At the same time, I also believe in and support the artistic choices made by the development team. The team and I have been thinking hard about how to best address the comments on ME3’s endings from players, while still maintaining the artistic integrity of the game.

There's no reason not to believe that the pre-EC ending is exactly what they wanted. There's no reason not to believe that Bioware thought the Catalyst was well-implemented. There's no reason not to believe that they wanted us to believe that there will always be conflict between organics and synthetics, and oh, surprise!, that's the story you've been playing all along, whether you brokered peace on Rannoch or not.

So it's less, "players are assuming that that's what Bioware intented" and more, "Bioware explicitly told us that that's what they intended."

[AlanC9]

Question. Have you ever worked on creating a video game before? How much experience do you have in the realm of video game creation? Because the issue I gain with statements like that is people who aren't in the same business have no idea what can, does and might go on. People make a ton of assumptions about many things. Only very few are correct. Placing blame without knowing everything that went on doesn't solve anything.

I've worked in development, though not games.

It's not mysterious. There's a budget and a release date. If your planned product doesn't work with those, there's something wrong with your plan. If Bio's script outline was unfeasible within the known constraints, then their options were to either make a business case for a higher budget, or write a script which did work within those constraints.

The best case is that Bio underestimated the required resources. Mistakes happen, yep. But that would be Bio's mistake, not EA's.

[Iakus]

Pretty much, yeah. They were going for Eden, not ominous; it's now a new world since the fundamental fact of the galaxy has been erased and replaced with something else. Lots of speculations ensue, sure, but that's about the future development of the societies -- the final choices themselves were supposed to be exactly what it says on the tin.

Less Garden of Eden and more post-Rangarok, or Noah's Ark.

 

Not an earthly paradise, but a place where survivors start building a new world from a wasteland.

[gothpunkboy89]

Why wouldn't we? Here's another quote from the apology: As co-founder and GM of BioWare, I’m very proud of the ME3 team; I personally believe Mass Effect 3 is the best work we’ve yet created.
 
And then later: I believe passionately that games are an art form, and that the power of our medium flows from our audience, who are deeply involved in how the story unfolds, and who have the uncontested right to provide constructive criticism. At the same time, I also believe in and support the artistic choices made by the development team. The team and I have been thinking hard about how to best address the comments on ME3’s endings from players, while still maintaining the artistic integrity of the game.

There's no reason not to believe that the pre-EC ending is exactly what they wanted. There's no reason not to believe that Bioware thought the Catalyst was well-implemented. There's no reason not to believe that they wanted us to believe that there will always be conflict between organics and synthetics, and oh, surprise!, that's the story you've been playing all along, whether you brokered peace on Rannoch or not.

So it's less, "players are assuming that that's what Bioware intented" and more, "Bioware explicitly told us that that's what they intended."

 It is kind of the GM's job to support the staff while at the same time acknowledging criticism they might get. I take it you have never actually even vaguely held a position similar to that have you? Because unless the staff under your management do something outside the lines of company policy kind of part of your job to support the staff under your supervision as well as acknowledge criticisms you might get and address it. People that instantly sell out everyone else claiming it isn't their fault it was steve and lucy's fault tend not to be managers for very long. And while I am certainly not an expert in BioWare's company policy creating a game that some people don't like the ending I am sure is will within company policy.

 

There are a fair number of reason the thing is you personally don't care about the alternatives that might exist because they don't fit with what you want to have happened. You again are making an assumption and stating that your assumption is right because you are the one that made it. Mean while my assumption is wrong because it is different from your assumption.

 

The proof is in the pudding so to speak. The end part of the game feels rushed. The talk with catalyst is short and the ending cinema is only a fer minutes long. Compare it to the rest of the game and how it plays out it is rather obviously rushed. This is a stark difference for the rest of the game. Even the DLC which a few players claim they threw together real fast to explain the "plot holes" in the story. The EC does it's fair job of reducing the rushed feeling and all they did was add a few new lines and extend the ending moment another few minutes. So again maybe just giving more credit then is due but I can't see BioWare releasing a game in that state unless they were forced to. And given EA's well earned track record combined with how anticipated the game would have been on release fits just as well.

 

Your statement is basically stating that Ubisoft purposefully released Assassin's Creed Unity in the state it was in. You know the no face, floating eyes and mouth set up. Or that Bethesda purposefully wants all those game breaking bugs in their Elder Scroll/Fallout games because that is how they released them. And the only reason they fixed those bugs was just to silence the players who were complaining about randomly falling though the floor of the game and dying.

[gothpunkboy89]

I've worked in development, though not games.

It's not mysterious. There's a budget and a release date. If your planned product doesn't work with those, there's something wrong with your plan. If Bio's script outline was unfeasible within the known constraints, then their options were to either make a business case for a higher budget, or write a script which did work within those constraints.

The best case is that Bio underestimated the required resources. Mistakes happen, yep. But that would be Bio's mistake, not EA's.

 

And yet the complaint is that BioWare did a bad job of explaining the plot. Which kind of highlights the time constraint issue. Particularly when you compared the ending to the rest of the game and the pacing changes. On top of this I've noticed a trend of players wanting even more out of the ending then was updated with the EC. So things seem to be not as cut and dry as you make them out to be.

 

If EA doesn't give them the time needed to make those improvements needed to make the game better then it is EA's fault for now letting them take the time to do it.

[Monica21]

It is kind of the GM's job to support the staff while at the same time acknowledging criticism they might get. I take it you have never actually even vaguely held a position similar to that have you? Because unless the staff under your management do something outside the lines of company policy kind of part of your job to support the staff under your supervision as well as acknowledge criticisms you might get and address it. People that instantly sell out everyone else claiming it isn't their fault it was steve and lucy's fault tend not to be managers for very long. And while I am certainly not an expert in BioWare's company policy creating a game that some people don't like the ending I am sure is will within company policy.

Of course that's the manager's job. You're masterfully disregarding that the artistic vision is still the same "artistic vision" and no amount of "I support my staff" is going to change that. It's fine to support your staff. It's a good thing. Good managers should do that. Good managers don't publicly call out their staff because a product isn't received as planned. (I actually am a manager of people. Thirteen direct reports and twenty-five indirect. I know what the job of a manager is.)

The problem here is that Bioware wrote themselves into a corner. His public statements are fine. If that's what my staff did then sure, I'd do the same thing, so I'm not sure what your point is. It doesn't affect anything though. What Ray did was publicly reinforce that the ending was intentional. Which is really the whole point here, not a debate on whether Ray is a good boss.
 

There are a fair number of reason the thing is you personally don't care about the alternatives that might exist because they don't fit with what you want to have happened. You again are making an assumption and stating that your assumption is right because you are the one that made it. Mean while my assumption is wrong because it is different from your assumption.

It's a conclusion based on available evidence. I'm pretty confident that my conclusion is accurate and not just based in fantasy and wishing.
 

The proof is in the pudding so to speak. The end part of the game feels rushed. The talk with catalyst is short and the ending cinema is only a fer minutes long. Compare it to the rest of the game and how it plays out it is rather obviously rushed. This is a stark difference for the rest of the game. Even the DLC which a few players claim they threw together real fast to explain the "plot holes" in the story. The EC does it's fair job of reducing the rushed feeling and all they did was add a few new lines and extend the ending moment another few minutes. So again maybe just giving more credit then is due but I can't see BioWare releasing a game in that state unless they were forced to. And given EA's well earned track record combined with how anticipated the game would have been on release fits just as well.

What is this a response to? Because it's certainly not to my statement about what Bioware intended the Catalyst to be.
 

Your statement is basically stating that Ubisoft purposefully released Assassin's Creed Unity in the state it was in. You know the no face, floating eyes and mouth set up. Or that Bethesda purposefully wants all those game breaking bugs in their Elder Scroll/Fallout games because that is how they released them. And the only reason they fixed those bugs was just to silence the players who were complaining about randomly falling though the floor of the game and dying.

OH GOD THANK YOU FOR ANOTHER ANALOGY! I've never played Assassin's Creed so I can't respond to this. Not that I would care to anyway. And I don't think that Bethesda purposely releases games in the state they're in, I just think they don't care. They cater to console gamers now and that's fine, but PC players can mod in whatever they want or just fix things themselves. Bethesda has a very long history of releasing buggy games and Todd Howard should really get around to not doing that.

[AlanC9]

And yet the complaint is that BioWare did a bad job of explaining the plot. Which kind of highlights the time constraint issue. Particularly when you compared the ending to the rest of the game and the pacing changes. .

This is incoherent. Bio had control over how to spend their time. If they used up too much of it on stuff before the ending, that's nobody else's fault.

[Dantriges]

Is there a point in debating that any further, when Gothpunk dismisses anything put forward coming from Bioware, as exec talk propping up their staff? 

[rossler]

It doesn't even make sense to say that EA rushed the game, since it's known to have had an extension over the original timeframe. If Bio botched the execution so badly that they needed even more time, that's on them rather than EA.

 

Or you just didn't like it. That's also another possibility.

[dorktainian]

Or you just didn't like it. That's also another possibility.

 

so many people didn't. I actually think with the time they were given they did a cracking job on the game, and people like me who hate the game might actually be able to see that, given more time, they might well have come up with a masterpiece.  As it is tho it will always be remembered for 'that ending'.

[Gorwath-F]

For that matter, when clarifying that a bad ending is "not Mass Effect bad" and everybody knows what you are talking about, you just know something left a mark. Having a few fanboys gush over everything with a Bioware label is not going to change that.

[correctamundo]

Ha, the amount of bitter tears in this thread =).

[sveners]

Or you just didn't like it. That's also another possibility.

AlanC9 is probably the most pragmatic person here, and he has never expressed any dislike for ME3 or its ending. He just likes debating.

[sveners]

Ha, the amount of bitter tears in this thread =).

Do you find that strange?

[correctamundo]

Do you find that strange?

 

I do. I doubt that I would've been able to carry this much negativity even if I had disliked the ending. But horses for courses and all that I guess.

[Natureguy85]

 It is kind of the GM's job to support the staff while at the same time acknowledging criticism they might get.

 

Support the staff: yes. Support everything the company does no matter what: no. If they felt they did a poor job or were even unsure after actually analyzing the criticism, they could have said that. Even "we'll take a second look at it," would be something. But they put their foot down that the ending was what they wanted. The EC addressed some issues with varying degrees of quality and there were a few extra lines added in that did help a bit. However the foundation was still flawed, so the ending was still bad.

 

 

The proof is in the pudding so to speak. The end part of the game feels rushed. The talk with catalyst is short and the ending cinema is only a fer minutes long. Compare it to the rest of the game and how it plays out it is rather obviously rushed. This is a stark difference for the rest of the game. Even the DLC which a few players claim they threw together real fast to explain the "plot holes" in the story. The EC does it's fair job of reducing the rushed feeling and all they did was add a few new lines and extend the ending moment another few minutes. So again maybe just giving more credit then is due but I can't see BioWare releasing a game in that state unless they were forced to. And given EA's well earned track record combined with how anticipated the game would have been on release fits just as well.

 

Woah, don't tell me about how it feels. Where's your actual, independent proof that it was rushed? You keep demanding that of Monica. If she's not allowed to make a conclusion based on how the game looks or feels, then neither are you.

 

 

Or you just didn't like it. That's also another possibility.

 

We didn't like it because they botched it.

[correctamundo]

We didn't like it because they botched it.

 

I'd say you feel they botched it because you didn't like it.

[sveners]

I do. I doubt that I would've been able to carry this much negativity even if I had disliked the ending. But horses for courses and all that I guess.

I had those same doubts, I even ridiculed people who were disappointed/dissatisfied with other products/games. Then it happened to me, and be aware that it could just as easily happen to you.

[gothpunkboy89]

Of course that's the manager's job. You're masterfully disregarding that the artistic vision is still the same "artistic vision" and no amount of "I support my staff" is going to change that. It's fine to support your staff. It's a good thing. Good managers should do that. Good managers don't publicly call out their staff because a product isn't received as planned. (I actually am a manager of people. Thirteen direct reports and twenty-five indirect. I know what the job of a manager is.)

The problem here is that Bioware wrote themselves into a corner. His public statements are fine. If that's what my staff did then sure, I'd do the same thing, so I'm not sure what your point is. It doesn't affect anything though. What Ray did was publicly reinforce that the ending was intentional. Which is really the whole point here, not a debate on whether Ray is a good boss.
 

It's a conclusion based on available evidence. I'm pretty confident that my conclusion is accurate and not just based in fantasy and wishing.
 

What is this a response to? Because it's certainly not to my statement about what Bioware intended the Catalyst to be.
 

OH GOD THANK YOU FOR ANOTHER ANALOGY! I've never played Assassin's Creed so I can't respond to this. Not that I would care to anyway. And I don't think that Bethesda purposely releases games in the state they're in, I just think they don't care. They cater to console gamers now and that's fine, but PC players can mod in whatever they want or just fix things themselves. Bethesda has a very long history of releasing buggy games and Todd Howard should really get around to not doing that.

 

No it doesn't enforce any singular statement other then a GM doing exactly what a GM is suppose to do when the actions of his workers are met with criticism. Nothing more and nothing less. If EA did have a hand in rushing the game out it would be fairly stupid for him to complain about it. Again not the smartest business action to publicly throw EA under the bus and blame them for any faults. Particularly when EA seems to be the main company that publishes their games.

 

So is my conclusion based on available evidence. I'm pretty confident that my conclusion is accurate and not just based in fantasy and wishing. Here is the funny thing though we both lack the hard evidence needed to fully back up our conclusions. Regardless of how many other people might agree with you it doesn't suddenly make it correct. A disturbingly large amount of people (more then 1) have come to the conclusion based on available evidence that vaccines are bad for a variety of reasons. They are confident that their conclusion is accurate and not just based in fantasy and wishing. All those people think this same thing yet doesn't make them correct. You, I and the others on the forum are in one regard much like the anti vaccine idiots. We take the "evidence" which really wouldn't be considered that in any real discussion. And come to our conclusions based on that and nothing more then wishing this is what happened.

 

You are not a fan of the writing and how the game ended so clearly they must have wanted to do it this way. I see how they handled the rest of the trilogy up to and including 90% of the rest of ME 3's vanilla game and see how it was handled. Not necessarily what happened but how it happened as a bit out of place with the rest of the game series. Rather like they ran out of time, budget or both and had to pick and choose which parts to put into the game to finish the story on time and in budget.

 

My statement is in responds to the events and happenings that were updated with the EC. As for the games you didn't have to play Assasin's Creed Unity to know about how badly it was put together. Simply be on the internet in gaming forums and it would pop up.  VG Cats even did a pretty funny comic referencing it. and other issues at the time.

 

http://www.vgcats.co...s/?strip_id=353

 

As for the makers of ES and FO it is no doubt they enjoy their PC gamer market but to claim they don't care seems a bit....off and rather seems to support my previous statement.

[rossler]

We didn't like it because they botched it.

 

You may feel they botched it, but the OP, myself, and others feel they did an excellent job on it.

 

so many people didn't. I actually think with the time they were given they did a cracking job on the game, and people like me who hate the game might actually be able to see that, given more time, they might well have come up with a masterpiece.  As it is tho it will always be remembered for 'that ending'.

 

How many people is so many? Do you have any numbers?

 

And given enough time, do you believe that the dissatisfied people would like the ending? I can tell you from personal experience working in customer service, that there isn't 100% satisfaction with every product on the shelf. Why do you think they have people returning stuff, and less than 5 star reviews? Yeah, some are going to be dissatisfied. That's just part of it.

 

You were expecting a masterpiece that would please everyone (given enough time), but instead you received a dissatisfying ending. I'd say this boils down to expectations not being met.

[angol fear]

You may feel they botched it, but the OP, myself, and others feel they did an excellent job on it.


How many people is so many? Do you have any numbers?

And given enough time, do you believe that the dissatisfied people would like the ending? I can tell you from personal experience working in customer service, that there isn't 100% satisfaction with every product on the shelf. Why do you think they have people returning stuff, and less than 5 star reviews? Yeah, some are going to be dissatisfied. That's just part of it.

You were expecting a masterpiece that would please everyone (given enough time), but instead you received a dissatisfying ending. I'd say this boils down to expectations not being met.

I agree. I would just add that to expect a "masterpiece" people to know what is a masterpiece. People here have shown many time that they don't know : they can't define it, they can't accept that masterpieces don't follow rules and they will also deny what some very basic knowledge will support : most of the time, masterpieces are not popular (because they break rules that then change because of these masterpiece that changed the structures, the writing. With time they can become popular when the "rules" are changed because of the influence of the masterpiece)!