Vertical slices like that aren't an unfinished build, though. They're a completely different build.It goes beyond the simple "It's an unfinished build. Everything is subject to change" argument that even I'm fond of using around these parts.
Vertical slices like that aren't an unfinished build, though. They're a completely different build.
Expecting it to be something it's not is your fault, not theirs.
Vertical slices are builds modified to look like what the finished product is supposed to once it is finished, done so because not everything is finished yet. It's not like they're showing you a completely different game. It was made perfectly clear that the build we saw was representative of what the final build will be, and that was a lie.
This is not simply "expecting it to be something it's not". It's being told we're getting a suit, being shown a real suit, and then getting a t-shirt.
Then you're actually defending it by saying it's our fault for expecting a suit.
If they didn't say that explicitly, then it wasn't made perfectly clear.Vertical slices are builds modified to look like what the finished product is supposed to once it is finished, done so because not everything is finished yet. It's not like they're showing you a completely different game. It was made perfectly clear that the build we saw was representative of what the final build will be, and that was a lie.
And even if they had, why would you expect them to be able to see the future? At best, they're stating their intent, in that moment, to try to achieve that target. That's far more equivocal than what you're saying.
When the game is still in development, then yes, they are stating their intent.
But those demo based trailers were still shown a week before release, i.e. after the game had gone gold. At that point it might have been their intention, once, to make a game that looked like the demo, but they certainly knew then that it wasn't going to be. Yet they chose to continue to use advertising material that did not represent the finished product.
If they didn't say that explicitly, then it wasn't made perfectly clear.
And they didn't say that explicitly.
And even if they had, why would you expect them to be able to see the future? At best, they're stating their intent, in that moment, to try to achieve that target. That's far more equivocal than what you're saying.
A vertical slice of gameplay means that it's representative of they expect the final product to look like so yes, that was made perfectly clear because that's exactly what those words mean in this context.
On top of that, it was still being used as the marketing material even long after "why would you expect them to be able to see the future?" was a viable argument. They were still showing us footage that, at that point, they knew was not going to be anything like what the final game was.
Gearbox has no ground to stand on for this one. They are 100% at fault here.
The age of the footage affects its relevance and trustworthiness.A vertical slice of gameplay means that it's representative of they expect the final product to look like so yes, that was made perfectly clear because that's exactly what those words mean in this context.
On top of that, it was still being used as the marketing material even long after "why would you expect them to be able to see the future?" was a viable argument. They were still showing us footage that, at that point, they knew was not going to be anything like what the final game was.
Gearbox has no ground to stand on for this one. They are 100% at fault here.
You're assuming that the only possible gameplay objective is to win.Considering how overpowered and broken some classes are in DAI, I also fail to see what is "tactical and strategic thinking" about the game. If you even have the slightest understanding of how holy trinity works and how to manage a party, the game is simple on any difficulty.
As torturous as it is to be starving with little to no food, I'm favoring EA's handling of MEA way better than Sony handling Uncharted 4. U4 was shown at E3 2013 for hell's sake. Guarantee it'll be a knockout, since Naughty Dog are perfectionists and demand GOTY quality or nothing. However, it was a cover feature on gameinformer in February of 2015, giving out a lot of details. it has suffered from it's 5th delay only last night.
Like previous people have stated, EA and BW staying mum on the details until it's near completion is smarter in my book.
Have to agree tbh. I'd rather they take their time and get it right not rush things and get it wrong besides there aer other games that aer coming out that I'm interested in too and they'll likely keepme busy until they are ready to release MEA either way and if not I have tons of other games I cvan play through again as well. When it's released is not and never will be a problem to me. For me it's just that it's announced and it's something to look forward to regardless of when it comes.
You're assuming that the only possible gameplay objective is to win.
Well, when in a fight that can kill you to be fair, the objective is to win so you don't die.
Well, when in a fight that can kill you to be fair, the objective is to win so you don't die.
However, part of the point of it being a "game" is that it cannot actually "kill" you... or your player character, for that matter. It's been a long time since I've seen a game that even makes the player totally restart the game after 3 or so "deaths." Most have some means of persistant respawning or, at the most, make the player go back 1 checkpoint.
The delay of DAI gave us Solas romance. I don't know, is it worth the waiting for breaking our heart? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Edit 2: Apparently it was called "Another World" and it got rave reviews at the time and it was even made into a short film. Wtf is wrong with people. That game was horrible. Maybe I was too young to appreciate its genius.
http://deadline.com/...dia-1201716970/
You and me both are asking that question.
I personally think the development process has been ridiculously simplified in this thread. This is the usual lifecycle when one is developing software.
Requirements --> implementation---> Testing ---> Build
Which is to say that there is nothing that states that functionality in a demo is not subjected to change. This implies that once functionality is placed in a release, it cannot be removed. This also implies that software is a static which it is not. A demo release for me states that at this moment, this is the stable functionality that they have in their build. This functionality can be subjected to change according to what comes down the pipeline in the future.
Of course, that's why they call them builds, instead of "Uh oh, how did that stay in?"
Kids these days...why, back in my day on the NES, we played shoddily made games that objectively sucked all the time. And did we ****** about it? Well yeah, but only after we attempted to make impossible jumps a thousand times before rage quitting a game.
If you're feeling nostalgic, come over to my place and get all the TOR datacrons for me?
You see... I feel like I've just been mislead... by you. This does not represent any sort of "summary" of the case. In fact, the person in the video clearly says they don't care about the legal case and subjects me to a huge string of profanity without warning that you apparently feel is just a passionate delivery. Furthermore, I fell you're "defending" your action of posting it in the subsequent post you've made to me.
So... should I threaten to sue you? (I don't think so, BTW.)
Im not commenting on the legality at all. I never said I was. You keep arguing against positions im not taking.
Im just providing information about the events. That's what I mean when i said "the situation". Not the legal case, but the actions of the developer and the response of the people.
Im not arguing one way or the other about the legal case, I honestly don't care.
http://deadline.com/...dia-1201716970/
You and me both are asking that question.
A vertical slice of gameplay means that it's representative of they expect the final product to look like so yes, that was made perfectly clear because that's exactly what those words mean in this context.
On top of that, it was still being used as the marketing material even long after "why would you expect them to be able to see the future?" was a viable argument. They were still showing us footage that, at that point, they knew was not going to be anything like what the final game was.
Gearbox has no ground to stand on for this one. They are 100% at fault here.
I should clarify and expand on why I brought up what I think is the most relevant example of what actual deceptive marketing [SEGA and their game, Aliens: Colonial marines], and why Revan is just being beyond absurd in his allegations against Bioware.
Now, firstly, although Gearbox may have had a hand in this, we cant prove that, and all the evidence is to the contrary, so we will be talking about Sega when representing the AC:M issue.
1) The demo represented "Gameplay", but that part of the game either did not exist and/or was substantially modified. Therefore, the description of gameplay is deceptive
2) The said "Gameplay" represented has significant technological advantages over the actual game, making it further deceptive. These included lighting, texture quality and the AI of enemies. Additionally, the amount of assets/details within the game were superior.
3) Further, unlike almost every other games in history where visual downgrades occurred, (Examples: Watchdogs, The Division, The Witcher 3), all of these had subsequent trailers released where the final graphics were shown.
4) So we have a situation where deceptive 'gameplay' was shown, no further trailers were provided to correct the deception, and finally, the nail in the coffin, an embargo occurs where there is a press blackout until post-release.
5) So clear was the deception, that a governing body ruled in the UK the trailers had to be adjusted to write 'alpha: not representative' on them, and since then we've seen a trend of game developers writing this on all pre-release builds to cover themselves legally through this precedent. However, in the US, the case was settled, it did not reach an outcome in trial therefore we dont know the precedent in the US.
This Sega case is the only example we have that resembles a substantial consumer lawsuit against a video game publisher, similar to what Revan is claiming he supports.
In my assessment, and until I see further evidence, this is SO beyond any shadow of possibility for the ME series, (and ME has also had the wealth of experience of all these titles before them), that I find it nearly impossible to believe that any such mistake and subsequent legal action is possible.
The claim is simply absurd, no other way to put it.
To me, this contention of illegality just reeks of being frustrated because Mass Effect are going the route of Bethesda/Fallout and doing information blackouts until 6 months or so until release, rather than trickling the information for eager power gamers. And although perhaps for some people, the trickle would be ideal, I believe the past 5 years has shown trickles lead to 'over-hype', and 'over-hype', leads to consumer let-down. Who can fault Bioware for choosing this route.
[EDIT:] I also want to addendum one thing. In a previous post, I mentioned that throwing around the word "fraud", should be done so with caution as you always need strong evidence to prove it. Now, I think if we had all the phone recordings and emails from within the Sega Marketing Department, its possible you could actually claim that Sega were making fraudulent claims about the game because they knowingly withheld the real gameplay, and let the fallacious representation of their game stand.
But its worth noting, in every, or perhaps almost every country in the world, [and in this case, the most deceptive case of video game marketing the industry has ever seen], Sega has been able to skirt the accusation of fraud with it just being a 'deception', potentially not deliberate, or at least not proven so. Reviewing some of the logs of the discussion from trials, they claim that the embargo's were standard practice, citing hundreds of other games doing it, regarding not updating the trailer - they cite communication problems with Gearbox and getting subsequent trailers. regarding the alpha 'vertical slice', they cite pressures in getting presentation builds for E3 and press expos, it being standard in the industry, etc etc.
So what I'm saying here, is fraud is pretty serious and its almost unprecedented that such a claim will end up standing because of the burden to prove INTENTION. You might as well just say "deception", rather than fraud, because fraud will almost never stand in video game marketing.
The age of the footage affects its relevance and trustworthiness.
I do not accept your assertion. Viewers ahould have discounted the value of that demo based in the time that had passed since it was made.
It makes sense for Gearbox to keep using it because they already had it, so it was a sunk cost. The only other free solution was not marketing the game.
It doesn't make sense because the product has drastically changed. You don't get to keep advertising a car when you're actually making a truck now, just because you originally wanted to make it a car. That's not how it works.
Plus, it's not like cutting a trailer and releasing a few screenshots is some huge expense. On top of that, they actually had a NDA on reviewers so that they couldn't release a review prior to the game's actual launch despite the fact that they had played the game before that. They could have tons of marketing material in those reviews for free by not doing the NDA.
Instead, they ensured that there was zero information on the internet for the customer to find in trying to research the product until well after launch.
You're actively defending that companies should be allowed to straight up lie in their marketing right now. Not simply just be deceptive like most, but actually lie about what their product is when they know it is 100% a lie.
That is a horrible system that is extremely anti-consumer.
I should clarify and expand on why I brought up what I think is the most relevant example of what actual deceptive marketing [SEGA and their game, Aliens: Colonial marines], and why Revan is just being beyond absurd in his allegations against Bioware.
Now, firstly, although Gearbox may have had a hand in this, we cant prove that, and all the evidence is to the contrary, so we will be talking about Sega when representing the AC:M issue.
1) The demo represented "Gameplay", but that part of the game either did not exist and/or was substantially modified. Therefore, the description of gameplay is deceptive
2) The said "Gameplay" represented has significant technological advantages over the actual game, making it further deceptive. These included lighting, texture quality and the AI of enemies. Additionally, the amount of assets/details within the game were superior.
3) Further, unlike almost every other games in history where visual downgrades occurred, (Examples: Watchdogs, The Division, The Witcher 3), all of these had subsequent trailers released where the final graphics were shown.
4) So we have a situation where deceptive 'gameplay' was shown, no further trailers were provided to correct the deception, and finally, the nail in the coffin, an embargo occurs where there is a press blackout until post-release.
5) So clear was the deception, that a governing body ruled in the UK the trailers had to be adjusted to write 'alpha: not representative' on them, and since then we've seen a trend of game developers writing this on all pre-release builds to cover themselves legally through this precedent. However, in the US, the case was settled, it did not reach an outcome in trial therefore we dont know the precedent in the US.
This Sega case is the only example we have that resembles a substantial consumer lawsuit against a video game publisher, similar to what Revan is claiming he supports.
In my assessment, and until I see further evidence, this is SO beyond any shadow of possibility for the ME series, (and ME has also had the wealth of experience of all these titles before them), that I find it nearly impossible to believe that any such mistake and subsequent legal action is possible.
The claim is simply absurd, no other way to put it.
To me, this contention of illegality just reeks of being frustrated because Mass Effect are going the route of Bethesda/Fallout and doing information blackouts until 6 months or so until release, rather than trickling the information for eager power gamers. And although perhaps for some people, the trickle would be ideal, I believe the past 5 years has shown trickles lead to 'over-hype', and 'over-hype', leads to consumer let-down. Who can fault Bioware for choosing this route.
[EDIT:] I also want to addendum one thing. In a previous post, I mentioned that throwing around the word "fraud", should be done so with caution as you always need strong evidence to prove it. Now, I think if we had all the phone recordings and emails from within the Sega Marketing Department, its possible you could actually claim that Sega were making fraudulent claims about the game because they knowingly withheld the real gameplay, and let the fallacious representation of their game stand.
But its worth noting, in every, or perhaps almost every country in the world, [and in this case, the most deceptive case of video game marketing the industry has ever seen], Sega has been able to skirt the accusation of fraud with it just being a 'deception', potentially not deliberate, or at least not proven so. Reviewing some of the logs of the discussion from trials, they claim that the embargo's were standard practice, citing hundreds of other games doing it, regarding not updating the trailer - they cite communication problems with Gearbox and getting subsequent trailers. regarding the alpha 'vertical slice', they cite pressures in getting presentation builds for E3 and press expos, it being standard in the industry, etc etc.
So what I'm saying here, is fraud is pretty serious and its almost unprecedented that such a claim will end up standing because of the burden to prove INTENTION. You might as well just say "deception", rather than fraud, because fraud will almost never stand in video game marketing.
I agree that there is no ground to stand on for anything in the Mass Effect franchise for this.
and yeah, my understanding is that Gearbox actually had little to do with it other than having their name slapped on it. They apparently didn't even develop the game. I was just half asleep when I said that =P
What I get from Raven is that they want to go after BioWare if ME:A simply just doesn't live up to their expectations, which is not how it works. Even in the case of something like DA:I where they had a video with content that ultimately got cut in it, that doesn't fall under anything you can have a class action lawsuit for.
Actually attempting to go after BioWare legally for those kinds of things wont actually have the effect these people want anyway. It will just tell BioWare that they shouldn't give us any information until the game is closer to release and they're 100% certain that is how the game is going to be.
Kind of like what they're doing to us right now =P
What's even worse about this situation is we literally know next to nothing about this game. Unless it has a big showing at E3 this year, or even Comic Con or N7 Day, this may spell bad news for MEA in terms of development woes. This isn't the first game BioWare has delayed either.
Dragon Age Inquisition is the most recent example of a game that was delayed, and I'm not sure its slight delay really made any difference. The game still suffered from issues and bugs at launch in which BioWare had to subsequently patch anyway. If I recall, DAI was only delayed a month, which is absolutely no time to polish or fix anything.
Have patience. DA:I was rushed and we all saw the s*** it turned out to be in the end. Here's hoping BW learned from this experience.
Let the devs take their time. Better to wait for a decent, innovative, awe-inspiring game than to buy a rushed and unfinished product.
Have patience. DA:I was rushed and we all saw the s*** it turned out to be in the end. Here's hoping BW learned from this experience.
Let the devs take their time. Better to wait for a decent, innovative, awe-inspiring game than to buy a rushed and unfinished product.
Inquisition wasn't rushed, it was cross-gen and mismanaged. They had to cut good, functioning content to accommodate the PS3 and 360. That content never should have been made. Had the game been properly managed that content would have been scrapped much, much earlier and more work would have been done to make the empty, boring maps more lively and engaging with actual sidequests.
The delay of DAI gave us Solas romance. I don't know, is it worth the waiting for breaking our heart? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Main game is more important than a romance...
Main game is more important than a romance...
Tell that to the Dragon Age team.
Inquisition wasn't rushed, it was cross-gen and mismanaged. They had to cut good, functioning content to accommodate the PS3 and 360. That content never should have been made. Had the game been properly managed that content would have been scrapped much, much earlier and more work would have been done to make the empty, boring maps more lively and engaging with actual sidequests.
Actually, I think one of the core issues with DA:I is that the initial design period (the ever important 6-12 months of game design, story planning, etc), and a lot of the actual development time coincided with the obsession the game industry had with 'open world'.
On the surface, if you look at the Dragon Age games, going 'open world' around the time it was being built seemed a logical progression. Further, the actual timeline for development coincided with many massively popular 'open world' games, where a lot of the games media was talking about how bad it was that narrative was 'linear' and at the same time praising the early open world games - basically saying "why cant every game be open world".
Of course, now that sentiment has flipped on its head, and games journalism has universally condemned open world in what is basically a 360 of their opinion. You could paraphrase it to something like, "Actually, open world is all good and well but go back to having good quality stories and not having an extra 20-40 hours of padding/filler content".
Recent really strong evidence of this marketing data is retiring the annual Assassins Creed franchise, (stated reasons being due to sales slumps and much complaint about padding). Also, regarding open world/sandbox game reception, I would generally call recent reviews 'polarized' with notable games like Mad Max and Dragon Age: Inquisition, as having mixed reviews citing reasons like too many fetch quests and MMO style padding.
Look at the 5 years Bioware has has, I really feel quite bad:
SW:TOR
1) They start developing an MMO when the MMO genre was at its peak, and by the end of the development lifecycle, SWTOR's core gameplay is outdated.
2) MMO's in general are on the decline. The core 'gameplay loop' with hotkey combat has been played out and simply doing a WOW clone wont serve.
3) The current MMO trend at the time was at least having "live action MMO", as something new.
4) The story driven MMO concept, which was the unique take from Bioware, did not seem to supercede gamers being general tired of the genre by the end of the 4-5 year development cycle.
DA:I
As mentioned above, sandbox/open world was very popular during initial development, largely tired by the time DA:I releases.
-----
I mean, this is some seriously bad luck, BUT, there is a light at the end of this dark tunnel. I think the consensus is that Bioware has been a leader, if not THE leader in story driven content for over a decade. Bioware arn't idiots, surely Bioware have leaders and employees that have learned from the experience of trying to capitalize on 'industry trends', rather than focusing on their own success and doing what they know best.
From many public statements about ME:A, it will not be a DA:I clone in a sci-fi setting, they are keeping much of the story-focus, semi linear/semi open-world nature that we know and loved about ME 1-3. This isnt certain, but from reading between the lines of their PR this is what i gather.
If i had to guess, I would say they will add a bit of exploration and open world, but keep it fairly tight so that the overall experience feels less padded with uninteresting content and is more satisfying. For instance, barren parts of the world with a focus on herb collection will be replaced with optional planets and sleek/interesting driving with occasional rich and interesting rewards.
Also, the setting of their exploration being 'new worlds/planets', and driving a futuristic space vehicle is fairly advantageous over herb collection in terms of being interesting... just putting that out there. One would be a 9/10, the other a 2/10 on my interest level. Had the Mako in ME1 had the variety in worlds and customisation options being touted for ME:A, I think it would have been a much better received open world feature.
And this bodes well for ME:A. I think ME:A will probably have a similar marketing campaign to The Witcher 3, it will have a kickarse story, and it will captivate a large portion of the 'mum and dad' gamers, even more than ME3 did. I am betting on it being the most successful Bioware game ever - due to learning 2 extremely important lessons in the past 5 years.
Dont get me wrong, there will be hordes upon hordes of obsessed haters claiming they will never buy ME:A because of what Bioware did to ME3, but put simply, a good game is a good game. Ultimately, if the game is awesome, it will sell to core gamers AND penetrate a huge portion of casual gamers and be a massive hit, just like The Witcher 3 did.
Retour en haut