Well, Retake Mass Effect 3 is pretty much over. What have we learned from this experience?

[Joccaren]

2. is not an issue. They hadn't had a predetermined end point, and that was a lot of their problem. They had numerous options for how it might end, but not an actual planned ending for it. They foreshadowed in 2 one of the different endings, dropped the plotline entirely and tried to foreshadow this ending - not very successfully - in 3.

5. Should always have been obvious. You don't say you're a Casey Hudson fan, you say you're a Mass Effect fan. Casey Hudson made Mass Effect [Well, not on his own, but you get the picture], but it is Mass Effect you like.

9. I think needs more clarification. Devs SHOULD take risks with established IPs, but calculated risks. For example, setting the story in Kirkwall alone for DA2 was a risk - people were used to exploring a big open world, and it felt closed in for a lot. Changing the core combat and gameplay mechanics of the DA series isn't taking a risk - its trying to alienate your original fanbase.
Likewise, killing Shepard was a risk. Killing Shepard, the Mass Relays, stranding the Normandy and giving no insight as to what happened, in addition to discarding player choices, removing any semblance of sacrifice from the end, and generally giving the middle finger to the player during the end sequence... Yeah.

Captcha: Get over it. I think its trying to tell me something.

 

[anthony87]

I've learned that when Forbes, a business website, understands the situation more than the 'games journalists', your medium still has a looooooong way to go.

And what exactly makes them understand it more than game journalists?

Well just compare any of the calm, unbiased and well written articles from Forbes regarding the whole thing to the ones by game journalists/critics that just spouted the usual "artistic integrity" nonsense and then proceeded to insult the people who weren't happy with the ending.

I dunno if I'd say that Forbes "understood" it better but they certainly went about the whole thing in a much more professional manner.

 

[Zen Toombs]

I will tell you what I learned:

1: Many gamers have a deep seated distrust, and perhaps even hate, of gaming journalism.

2. Never, ever create trilogies, or a series with a pre-determined endpoint. Ever.

3. If the ending is not what people expect, people will rebel.

4. When gaming journalists are pushed, they can be just as nasty as any troll.

5. Fandoms are not loyal to the dev, they are loyal to the property.

6. To many people, video games are SERIOUS BUSINESS.

7. When fans work together for a common goal, they can get a lot of stuff done.

8. No matter what you do, if you anger fans, you are pretty much screwed. Even if you try to offer them concessions, there will still be a contingent of people who say that it is not good enough, and you can never hope to appease those people.

9. Devs should not take risks with properties with an established fan-base, lest they encounter enormous amounts of backlash.

EDIT: 10. Ending are the most important thing in any franchise to the fans. Don't screw them up.

I will respond, in order!

1. This has grown, yes. Considering a) the severe disconnect between gaming journalism and the gaming community and b) the fact that many game journalists are in bed with game developers, this is entirely reasonable.

2. Incorrect. Trilogies can be great, as can any series with a determined endpoint. It allows you to tell a great story and then finish said story. It doesn't mean you end the property, it just means that you end that story. For example, they could have continued with the Mass Effect universe (either in the past or future) but ended the story of Commander Shepard.

3. Yes. Especially when they expected a different ending because they said we would get a different ending.

4. Ha, that would require them to be relevant.

5. True facts. To most (if not all) players of a franchise, they care about the franchise not the company that makes it. Especially when said over-company is EA or something, and the franchise is one that encourages emotional investment.

6. Yes, this is true. However, not more so than anything else. I've seen people get much more riled up about the results of a sporting event than what happened with "Retake Mass Effect".

7. Heck yeah we can!

8. This is very true, and developers should not try to please everyone. HOWEVER, that does not work as an excuse for someone offering terrible concessions and saying it fixes everything. To quote a friend of mine, "don't give me shit and call it chocolate".
NOTE: Not currently a comment on Mass Effect 3. We'll have to see how the "Super Special Awesome Director's Cut DLC" turns out to say for certain.

9. ....No. Devs shouldn't take STUPID risks with a franchise. There's a significant difference.

10. Eh, it isn't the most important part. But it can easily ruin/colour the rest of the experience. This is especially the case with Mass Effect, as the ending ruins a major part of the appeal of the series (namely, the concept presented by Bioware that "your choices have consequences")

Decent thread, could use some work on your points though.
-Zen Toombs

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

What have we learned...

People will *****.

People will ***** about bitches.

People will ***** about the bitches bitching about bitches.

We're all just bitches at the end of the day.

 

[way2sl0w]

Yahtzee was right: "Fans are clingy complaining dipshits who will NEVER EVER be grateful for any concession you make. The sooner you tune out their tremulous shrills, the happier you'll be for it."

 

[RaikuFA]

Yahtzee was right: "Fans are clingy complaining dipshits who will NEVER EVER be grateful for any concession you make. The sooner you tune out their tremulous shrills, the happier you'll be for it."

Incidently, why don't you buy a Zero Puncuation t-shirt?

 

[KrabbiPatty]

Here is what I learned, in three parts:

1--I learned to plan out stories beginning, middle and end before you start a series or at least leave the ending open-ended enough that if people don't like it you can take a step back and retcon the shit out of it.

2--I learned the many are, still, more powerful than the few. Which is good because it means that the wealthy and the powerful can't just take money from me and lie to my face and then write me off as a business expense.

3--I learned that gaming journalists are by and large insecure assholes, with the sole exception of Jim Sterling (who kept his story more or less the same throughout). Outside of that gaming journalists seem obsessed with the idea that gaming be "respected" by the "other mediums" as a "true artform", whatever the hell any of that means; what it means to me though is that some people are more than willing to let gamers get screwed over as long as it means they look good in the eyes of Roger Ebert or something. Lame.


BONUS:
I also learned that short of Bronies, the Mass Effect fans are the most well-organized bunch in nerdom. Within fucking DAYS of that shitty ending, they had mobilized a virtual army to burn the gates of Bioware to the ground. Wow, three cheers guys.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I will tell you what I learned:

1: Many gamers have a deep seated distrust, and perhaps even hate, of gaming journalism.

2. Never, ever create trilogies, or a series with a pre-determined endpoint. Ever.

3. If the ending is not what people expect, people will rebel.

4. When gaming journalists are pushed, they can be just as nasty as any troll.

5. Fandoms are not loyal to the dev, they are loyal to the property.

6. To many people, video games are SERIOUS BUSINESS.

7. When fans work together for a common goal, they can get a lot of stuff done.

8. No matter what you do, if you anger fans, you are pretty much screwed. Even if you try to offer them concessions, there will still be a contingent of people who say that it is not good enough, and you can never hope to appease those people.

9. Devs should not take risks with properties with an established fan-base, lest they encounter enormous amounts of backlash.

EDIT: 10. Ending are the most important thing in any franchise to the fans. Don't screw them up.

I will respond, in order!

1. This has grown, yes. Considering a) the severe disconnect between gaming journalism and the gaming community and b) the fact that many game journalists are in bed with game developers, this is entirely reasonable.

2. Incorrect. Trilogies can be great, as can any series with a determined endpoint. It allows you to tell a great story and then finish said story. It doesn't mean you end the property, it just means that you end that story. For example, they could have continued with the Mass Effect universe (either in the past or future) but ended the story of Commander Shepard.

3. Yes. Especially when they expected a different ending because they said we would get a different ending.

4. Ha, that would require them to be relevant.

5. True facts. To most (if not all) players of a franchise, they care about the franchise not the company that makes it. Especially when said over-company is EA or something, and the franchise is one that encourages emotional investment.

6. Yes, this is true. However, not more so than anything else. I've seen people get much more riled up about the results of a sporting event than what happened with "Retake Mass Effect".

7. Heck yeah we can!

8. This is very true, and developers should not try to please everyone. HOWEVER, that does not work as an excuse for someone offering terrible concessions and saying it fixes everything. To quote a friend of mine, "don't give me shit and call it chocolate".
NOTE: Not currently a comment on Mass Effect 3. We'll have to see how the "Super Special Awesome Director's Cut DLC" turns out to say for certain.

9. ....No. Devs shouldn't take STUPID risks with a franchise. There's a significant difference.

10. Eh, it isn't the most important part. But it can easily ruin/colour the rest of the experience. This is especially the case with Mass Effect, as the ending ruins a major part of the appeal of the series (namely, the concept presented by Bioware that "your choices have consequences")

Decent thread, could use some work on your points though.
-Zen Toombs

exactly this. not to mention in mass effect, the ending is what you were REALLY looking forward to the whole damn time, the ending to YOUR shephard. copping out in the way they did drives me up the wall, and i've dealt with bad endings just fine. (hell kotor 2's ending didn't upset me really, yeah it was broken and rushed, but the developer admitted to it, and that wasn't the over arching big strength of the game.)

i think mass effect is an exception to the "endings shouldn't ruin the rest of the game" rule so many people seem to be applying. yeah a game is something you play for the journey, agreed. but mass effect has been boasting it for years, all the choices you make, all adds up in the end...which was complete opposite of what it should've been.


/end rant.

not bad points, i just hope developers take this to mind...gamers DO have limits. don't try to pull shit if you don't want to receive shit in return.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Spoiler: OP

I will tell you what I learned:

1: Many gamers have a deep seated distrust, and perhaps even hate, of gaming journalism.

2. Never, ever create trilogies, or a series with a pre-determined endpoint. Ever.

3. If the ending is not what people expect, people will rebel.

4. When gaming journalists are pushed, they can be just as nasty as any troll.

5. Fandoms are not loyal to the dev, they are loyal to the property.

6. To many people, video games are SERIOUS BUSINESS.

7. When fans work together for a common goal, they can get a lot of stuff done.

8. No matter what you do, if you anger fans, you are pretty much screwed. Even if you try to offer them concessions, there will still be a contingent of people who say that it is not good enough, and you can never hope to appease those people.

9. Devs should not take risks with properties with an established fan-base, lest they encounter enormous amounts of backlash.

EDIT: 10. Ending are the most important thing in any franchise to the fans. Don't screw them up.

Spoiler: I will respond, in order!

I will respond, in order!

1. This has grown, yes. Considering a) the severe disconnect between gaming journalism and the gaming community and b) the fact that many game journalists are in bed with game developers, this is entirely reasonable.

2. Incorrect. Trilogies can be great, as can any series with a determined endpoint. It allows you to tell a great story and then finish said story. It doesn't mean you end the property, it just means that you end that story. For example, they could have continued with the Mass Effect universe (either in the past or future) but ended the story of Commander Shepard.

3. Yes. Especially when they expected a different ending because they said we would get a different ending.

4. Ha, that would require them to be relevant.

5. True facts. To most (if not all) players of a franchise, they care about the franchise not the company that makes it. Especially when said over-company is EA or something, and the franchise is one that encourages emotional investment.

6. Yes, this is true. However, not more so than anything else. I've seen people get much more riled up about the results of a sporting event than what happened with "Retake Mass Effect".

7. Heck yeah we can!

8. This is very true, and developers should not try to please everyone. HOWEVER, that does not work as an excuse for someone offering terrible concessions and saying it fixes everything. To quote a friend of mine, "don't give me shit and call it chocolate".
NOTE: Not currently a comment on Mass Effect 3. We'll have to see how the "Super Special Awesome Director's Cut DLC" turns out to say for certain.

9. ....No. Devs shouldn't take STUPID risks with a franchise. There's a significant difference.

10. Eh, it isn't the most important part. But it can easily ruin/colour the rest of the experience. This is especially the case with Mass Effect, as the ending ruins a major part of the appeal of the series (namely, the concept presented by Bioware that "your choices have consequences")

Decent thread, could use some work on your points though.
-Zen Toombs

exactly this. not to mention in mass effect, the ending is what you were REALLY looking forward to the whole damn time, the ending to YOUR shephard. copping out in the way they did drives me up the wall, and i've dealt with bad endings just fine. (hell kotor 2's ending didn't upset me really, yeah it was broken and rushed, but the developer admitted to it, and that wasn't the over arching big strength of the game.)

i think mass effect is an exception to the "endings shouldn't ruin the rest of the game" rule so many people seem to be applying. yeah a game is something you play for the journey, agreed. but mass effect has been boasting it for years, all the choices you make, all adds up in the end...which was complete opposite of what it should've been.


/end rant.

not bad points, i just hope developers take this to mind...gamers DO have limits. don't try to pull shit if you don't want to receive shit in return.

Hey, you might want to spoiler or delete the irrelevant parts of a post you are quoting. Otherwise the post can get kinda long.

Also, additional note: Retake Mass Effect is over, roughly speaking. However, it is far too soon to see what the ramifications of that movement really are. I hope to remake this thread in about 6 months to a year and see how things have changed.

 

[Zhukov]

I was worried that Bioware would actually listen to the most obnoxious and idiotic side of the fandom i.e. the guys that literally wanted the original ending completely scrapped and replaced for a totally new one.

Obnoxious idiot #552703 reporting for duty.

I would like to know why exactly someone is obnoxious and idiotic for wanting a defective piece of work to be replaced.

 

[Pandabearparade]

1: Many gamers have a deep seated distrust, and perhaps even hate, of gaming journalism.

Entirely justified. They get their revenue streams from advertising for various publishers.

2. Never, ever create trilogies, or a series with a pre-determined endpoint. Ever.

Wrong, sir! The outcry wouldn't have happened (or not even close to the same degree) if they -had- gone with the initial endpoint. The Starchild was an asspull, not planned from the start.

3. If the ending is not what people expect, people will rebel.

If the ending is -bad- people will rebel.

4. When gaming journalists are pushed, they can be just as nasty as any troll.

Yep.

5. Fandoms are not loyal to the dev, they are loyal to the property.

Largely true.

6. To many people, video games are SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Sixty dollars is serious business.

7. When fans work together for a common goal, they can get a lot of stuff done.

Yes, I'm very happy to discover that I was wrong about the video game consumer now being nothing more than a beaten lemming who will defend anything from their favorite dev and ask for seconds.

8. No matter what you do, if you anger fans, you are pretty much screwed. Even if you try to offer them concessions, there will still be a contingent of people who say that it is not good enough, and you can never hope to appease those people.

Entirely true of some, but not me. They're offering an ending fix and they aren't charging for it. That's what I asked for and they did it; no complaints here, even if they fuck it up. At least this time they -tried-.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Bioware can't be trusted to make decisions on their own; but I've known that since ME2.

 

[wooty]

I learned that even through all the rage and bile, Mass Effect 3 is still one awesome game to play.

The endings not even that bad to be honest, it certainly made more sense and got me far less irritated than the Hunger Games. Now THAT was true crap.

 

[Redd the Sock]

On number 9: It's not that game developers shouldn't take risks with established francises. If they didn't we wouldn't have Resident Evil 4, Metal gear Solid, Numerous Final Fantasy games, Zelda: the Wind Waker, and pretty much no 3D versions of older series. However when you take a risk, you have to do your best to make the audience happy with it. Dragon aGe 2, for all it's flaws and shortcuts never left me feeling like there wasn't at least an attempt to make it work. ME3's ending made me feel like Casey Hudson said "this is the ending I want so fuck the fans". As far as I get away from it and rationalize things, one thing I still don't get: did he feel that people would like that ending, or was this the equivilant of an internet troll: aka he wanted to piss us all off?

So I amend 9 to no risk should be taken in a way that will openly antagonize fans. The bigger the risk, the more you damn well better be sure it's at least as well done as best as possible.

oh and I'll add 11) never deviate from the marketing campaign.

 

[BreakfastMan]

On number 9: It's not that game developers shouldn't take risks with established francises. If they didn't we wouldn't have Resident Evil 4, Metal gear Solid, Numerous Final Fantasy games, Zelda: the Wind Waker, and pretty much no 3D versions of older series. However when you take a risk, you have to do your best to make the audience happy with it. Dragon aGe 2, for all it's flaws and shortcuts never left me feeling like there wasn't at least an attempt to make it work. ME3's ending made me feel like Casey Hudson said "this is the ending I want so fuck the fans". As far as I get away from it and rationalize things, one thing I still don't get: did he feel that people would like that ending, or was this the equivilant of an internet troll: aka he wanted to piss us all off?

Remember though, most of the games you listed were hated when they first came out. Hell, Twilight Princess was a direct response to those who thought that WW was too "chilish". Many RE fans still hate RE4 and the non-horror direction they felt it took the series. Most of the more controversial FFs (8, 12, 13) are still hated. Many SH fans hate The Room, most original Fallout fans hate 3, etc. If the devs had did what the fans wanted, we would not have had those awesome games (NOTE: There may be disagreement here with the FF ones. All I can say is that I liked 8, and I am sticking to my guns). Because of that, I am incredibly skeptical of fan outcry and the value thereof. Yet, many (if not most) of the people in the Retake ME movement seem to be saying the opposite. Indeed, nothing I have seen says otherwise.

EDIT

oh and I'll add 11) never deviate from the marketing campaign.

Oh, I am glad they did deviate from the marketing campaign. Otherwise we would have had another big, dumb, sci-fi shooter with no RPG elements instead of the awesome, smart (up to the end, mind you), action-RPG we got.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I was worried that Bioware would actually listen to the most obnoxious and idiotic side of the fandom i.e. the guys that literally wanted the original ending completely scrapped and replaced for a totally new one.

Obnoxious idiot #552703 reporting for duty.

I would like to know why exactly someone is obnoxious and idiotic for wanting a defective piece of work to be replaced.

not gonna lie, laughed out loud at this. and very true.


just like any major recall on any item, when it is OBJECTIVELY shit, you fix that shit. end of story.

i'm gonna beat someone over the head with a giraffe if i see someone pull the artistic integrity crap one more time.

 

[C F]

I have been well aware of how powerful a directed fan-base can be, I've seen the consequences of squeezing a title out with inadequate development time, and I know everyone can be a two-faced backstabbing hypocrite simply because they haven't thoroughly thought out their own opinions before rushing into action.

Basically, the only thing I really learned is an estimate of how many idiots are in the gaming industry.
Answer: All of us. We're all idiots. The fans, Bioware, EA, gaming journalists, no one isn't an idiot in some way or another. So don't act surprised when half-brained judgments get made or stupid decisions are put into action.

But hey. At the end of the day, I finished a fun trilogy and I ate some ice cream and I laughed at some online people's opinions (not that they should know that). What more do we all really want?

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

On number 9: It's not that game developers shouldn't take risks with established francises. If they didn't we wouldn't have Resident Evil 4, Metal gear Solid, Numerous Final Fantasy games, Zelda: the Wind Waker, and pretty much no 3D versions of older series. However when you take a risk, you have to do your best to make the audience happy with it. Dragon aGe 2, for all it's flaws and shortcuts never left me feeling like there wasn't at least an attempt to make it work. ME3's ending made me feel like Casey Hudson said "this is the ending I want so fuck the fans". As far as I get away from it and rationalize things, one thing I still don't get: did he feel that people would like that ending, or was this the equivilant of an internet troll: aka he wanted to piss us all off?

Remember though, most of the games you listed were hated when they first came out. Hell, Twilight Princess was a direct response to those who thought that WW was too "chilish". Many RE fans still hate RE4 and the non-horror direction they felt it took the series. Most of the more controversial FFs (8, 12, 13) are still hated. Many SH fans hate The Room, most original Fallout fans hate 3, etc. If the devs had did what the fans wanted, we would not have had those awesome games (NOTE: There may be disagreement here with the FF ones. All I can say is that I liked 8, and I am sticking to my guns). Because of that, I am incredibly skeptical of fan outcry and the value thereof. Yet, many (if not most) of the people in the Retake ME movement seem to be saying the opposite. Indeed, nothing I have seen says otherwise.

EDIT

oh and I'll add 11) never deviate from the marketing campaign.

Oh, I am glad they did deviate from the marketing campaign. Otherwise we would have had another big, dumb, sci-fi shooter with no RPG elements instead of the awesome, smart (up to the end, mind you), action-RPG we got.

please explain how living up to the marketing campaign would have changed the 90% of mass effect 3 that nearly everyone enjoyed. what everyone CONSTANTLY points out, is the lack of depth to the ending, that they so very much pointed towards before the game was released, and said they would not do EXACTLY what they did do. (don't care to look up all the damn quotes, they have been mentioned in hundreds of threads already.)

 

[BreakfastMan]

please explain how living up to the marketing campaign would have changed the 90% of mass effect 3 that nearly everyone enjoyed. what everyone CONSTANTLY points out, is the lack of depth to the ending, that they so very much pointed towards before the game was released, and said they would not do EXACTLY what they did do. (don't care to look up all the damn quotes, they have been mentioned in hundreds of threads already.)

Well, everyone seems to have forgotten trailers like this:
or this:

In addition to the numerous other marketing things focusing on the action and explosions over the story and characters. I remember many people complaining about how "action-focused" the marketing for the game was before the game came out, and how it gave them the idea that Bioware was "dumbing it down for the casuals" and making big, dumb shooter. I, for one, am glad we did not get that game. :/