Hacker News Reader

Comment by sametmax | Hacker News Reader

I wish it were true but EA is still making bank while disrespecting customers, everybody complains yet still buy. Same with Facebook. Same with politicians.

A small group of smart people on the internet may do a lot of noise, but it just echoes in the void then it's business as usual.

View on HN

Look at Bioware. If they hadn't lied about the Mass Effect 3 ending (they promised your decisions matter; but none of them do, you choose at the end between 3 buttons) Andromeda would still have been criticized, but it would have been criticized in a more positive atmosphere. That studio is in a downward spiral ever since. There are additional reasons than those lies, but I'm certain lying to their fans and eroding the loyalty they had (it's after all the studio that made Baldur's Gate) did not help them one bit.

You know, just because the ending is the same regardless of your choices doesn't mean they didn't matter. No matter what we do, each of us is destined for the grave, even the universe will end one day, but our decisions still matter even though the outcome is identical.

PS: I had no idea it was such a controversial statement to suggest that things matter even if the universe is ultimately doomed.

Nope, it's not that kind of ending. Kill all the robots or not, that's more or less it. Not that philosophical kind of game.

And if you want to see it like that anyway: Yes, we die, but our actions influence the people around us. People we help might help us later etc. None of that was properly covered.

...and the universe will still end one day, meaning the outcome is, ultimately, identical. Why is this so difficult to understand?

You know that this is not proven right? Or rather, not even a "theory" in the physics sense, there are multiple competing hipothesis, none of them have enough evidence for us to be certain the universe will end... In some ideas the university does end, but in big crunch, or big rip, in others it just starts anew, in others humans spawn new universes, and so on...

None of the popular options sound like your choices will matter a lot in the end:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

There are a lot of competing theories of how the universe will end, but pretty much all mainstream cosmology admits that it will end. Very few cosmological models say otherwise.

However, even then I contend that eternity is just another kind of ending. Given an infinite time, everything that can happen will, and therefore it will also repeat. That means that every decision we make will be made again infinitely, every path followed an infinite number of times, always eventually returning back around again, and ultimately the outcome will still be the same.

So you see, under cosmologies of eternity, we just exist in a stasis of infinity and our decisions will not change that. Under cosmologies where the universe ends our decisions will not change that either. Does this mean that nothing we do matters?

"but pretty much all mainstream cosmology admits that it will end."

By using "admits" you mean they accept your point of view, even if they do not want to? Thats a bit telling about your worldview.

And have you ever considered, that cosmology can only make relative observations and speculations?

In other words, if our whole universe is just a small part of a bigger universe, how could we tell for sure, if all we can observe is within those borders?

Also, how likely is it, that out of eternal nothing someday came a whole universe which wents back to nothing forever?

Sounds more like religion than science.

> By using "admits" ...

"admits" can also be used to mean "accepts as valid"

I know. But in this context it did sound like the other explanation to me. (Probably not aware by you at the time of writing it)

I was about to write an impolite response. Let's just keep it at: Your thought is not that deep that it is original or something other people do not understand. You miss the point where your Existenzangst is applicable and where it is not. Jumping on meta-levels and missing that we talk about the time period where consequences matter - like for how much fun there is when you play the game during the period our universe actually exists - is not profound. Looks like a bored effort to derail the discussion to me.

Simple question: how much did the ending actually matter to your enjoyment of the game? Would you have ignored the game and simply watched your preferred ending on youtube? Would you have told your past self not to play the game at all given how the ending actually is?

These philosophical questions are not as separate from the day to day reality as you want to believe.

It compeletely destroyed every bit of enjoyment I took from playing and finishing the game. Yes, I would have not played the game and actually do that regularly when it comes up, to tell people to not play (and to not buy!) ME3. It was that bad.

> It compeletely destroyed every bit of enjoyment I took from playing and finishing the game.

So... you didn't enjoy anything at all up to that point? Really? Then why bother playing it at all? Why not let someone else play it and just watch your preferred ending cutscene on youtube? Is it really all just about the destination and the journey means nothing?

The outcome is not identical because our choices throughout our lives impact other people and, potentially, get passed through the generations. This is why humanity is so advanced despite not having physically evolved much. The outcome is only “identical” if you only care about yourself.

Not really the same thing at all.

The universe will end one day. The outcome will, ultimately, be identical.

The universe's end is not my end though, so I don't see that it's relevant.

Your end will happen even sooner than that by a ridiculously large margin.... so I don't get your point?

Not really.

Humanity will one day no longer exist and it will be as if we never existed at all. The universe is that massive and indifferent to our existence, and it too will come to an end.

I'm going to use this excuse next time I miss a sprint goal. "Gentlemen, let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture..."

The problem is that gamers were promised "decisions that matter" and in the end everybody got the same pre-canned three endings. Stepping up 6 meta levels and asking "Yeah, but what's life all really about anyhow?" is, you know, fine and all, but also in way, profoundly missing the point. We want to talk about Mass Effect right now, not fundamental existential ennui.

Personally... I don't care in the slightest, because as someone who's been playing these games for a while and also as a programmer, I observe that what these companies are promising is basically impossible, so I never bought into this promise to be offended it didn't play out. It is not possible to have a true branching story where you can make dozens and dozens of meaningful choices and the story has fully rendered cutscenes with voice acting and unique locations and etc. etc. But it might be nice if the companies would stop promising this. Every year, as the standards go up, it is actually getting harder and harder to bring this level of responsiveness to a game.

(Sometimes I think that as impressive as the holodeck may have been on ST:TNG in terms of providing an immersive sensory experience, it's even more impressive in that it seems to have enough intelligence built in that it can actually do true reactive storylines and such. We'll probably have reasonable approximations of the former a long time before the latter!)

It is definitely possible to make choices matter. Imagine that in the final mission, if you helped the Krogans before at one point during an alien attack there will be a Krogan Squad crushing through a wall and helping you out (that's taken from an interview with a Bioware employee who described what went wrong and how the ending should've worked). Stuff like that is possible, even if branching storylines are hard to do (cut content for many players and all that, I'm aware). The Fallout games - with the exceptions of Fallout 3 - show how it is indeed possible to at the end of the game show the impact of your actions on characters and civilization. BG2 did as well! And ME1 and ME2 during and at the end and even ME3 somewhat during the game showed consequences of prior actions - just at the end of a trilogy focusing on choice not at all.

Stupid mistake and definitely avoidable. I'm convinced Bioware sealed their fate with that (making mediocre games after did not help them though).

You can build this (story goes right):

      *   *   *   *   *   *
     / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
    *   *   *   *   *   *   *-->*
     \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
      *   *   *   *   *   *

And obviously elaborate on it.

You can't build this (story goes down):

              *
             / \
            *   *
           /|  /|\
          / | * | \
         *  *   *  *--
        /|  |\  |\  \ \
       / |  | * * *  * *
      *  *  *

and so on and so on.

The problem is, no matter how you disguise it, gamers sense in the first case that they're on some sort of rails. Then companies promise the second, whether they mean to or not. But they can't deliver across one game. I remember thinking when I heard the announcement about the Mass Effect trilogy laughing at the idea that they could do it across three. You just can't let the combinatorics explode that much and make decisions that change the story. (Note things like "whether or not a Krogan squad is there" are consequences, yes, but you'll note they do not impact the future flow of the story, so they don't contribute to a combinatorial explosion. It's a linear contribution; you have to model the event and voice act it, etc., but it's still just two story nodes not significantly interacting with anything else.)

Fallout 1 & Fallout 2 were structured as several parallel instances of the first example, which is probably the best compromise you can make to prevent exponential explosion while still giving some heft to the choices.

But ultimately, if you want your "choices to matter", you'd better stick to "classic" roleplaying. A Dungeon Master can react to your unexpected choices and set you in a standard "fetch the thing" quest but then react to you actually accidentally literally destroying the world when that wasn't written into their "plan", and then carry on with the resulting consequences if you like. Computer games are still a long, long ways away from anything like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-1WJtuzPg

I agree with your basic premise, but I think the complaint about ME3 was that it didn't reflect any previous decisions you made in the ending, not that the story failed to fork exponentially at every decision point. Indeed, IMO, ME3 did a really good job of making it feel like your decisions matter...until the very end.

Star Ocean: The Second Story is yet another example of an RPG that does this; it has 70-80 endings, many forking paths including mutually exclusive party member choices, relationships between characters, etc. The trick for making it feasible seems to be to make the ending modular so that it includes/removes different cutscenes based on what happened before. As I understand it there are quite a few old-school RPGs that do this.

Of course it is harder if you are talking about voice acting and super-detailed 3D assets. But assets aren't that hard considering you already made most of them for the rest of the game, and realistic voice synthesis is perhaps not that far away. So I don't think most people were expecting model (B), but even that could be viable if you controlled the number of forks carefully.

> The problem is that gamers were promised "decisions that matter" and in the end everybody got the same pre-canned three endings. The problem is that gamers were promised "decisions that matter" and in the end everybody got the same pre-canned three endings.

I don't think it is. The decisions made did matter, as much as anything matters, they just didn't effect the ending cut-scene you got. Is there an intentional philosophical message here? Maybe, maybe not. But there is opportunity to reflect on our relationship with decisions and outcomes. Is our time spent with the game less meaningful because of how it ended? Given a time machine, would we have chosen not to play if we knew the ending? If the ending is the thing that is important, why play the game at all instead of just watching cutscenes on youtube?

"The decisions made did matter, as much as anything matters, they just didn't effect the ending cut-scene you got."

Affecting the ending is part of the promise given.

We want to talk about Mass Effect and whether promises were kept, not existential ennui. Whether or not we can truly know ourselves or whether or not the good life is led by trying to live as an ubermensch is not particularly relevant to whether promises about the game were broken.

It's sometimes helpful to step up a meta level, but you're trying to derail the conversation by stepping up something like five or six. It's not helpful.

> We want to talk about Mass Effect and whether promises were kept, not existential ennui.

Yeah, you're right, I should have known better than to expect more from Hacker News.

Now I suspect you are not commenting in good faith, but trolling. Existential ennui is great to grapple with, but out of scope for a public forum discussion about whether Mass Effect delivered on the promises it made or not.

"But none of our choices matter, ipso facto the premise of this discussion is pointless" is something you could say in any discussion. If people enjoy the shift and engage, you talk about it. If they don't, you don't dig in your heels and accuse them of not understanding your viewpoint.

EDIT: You can enjoy the journey of a game and still be upset that you were sold a lie. You can enjoy the journey in part because you believe there will be a story-based payout. If you do this, the natural arc of the views enjoyment of the story is to be angry that the payout never came. Maybe you enjoy that feeling of being betrayed by a publisher, it's is a story experience. It's not the kind of twist that satisfies most audiences.

> Existential ennui is great to grapple with, but out of scope for a public forum discussion about whether Mass Effect delivered on the promises it made or not.

Honestly I couldn't care less about ME3, I didn't play it for completely different reasons. I just found the philosophical concept of "decisions matter" much more interesting to talk about. I misjudged how much Hacker News would rather have a bitch-fest.

> "But none of our choices matter, ipso facto the premise of this discussion is pointless" is something you could say in any discussion.

First of all, my point is that choice do matter even when they do not affect the ultimate outcome. And I'm not saying it to disregard how the commenter feels about the game, but to highlight that their description of why they feel that way is a bad rationalization, and that they could learn something about how they approach the world from examining it.

If I appear upset, it's because Hacker News, ever willing to consider themselves above redditors without justification, seem to have decided that I was defending ME3 during their collective bitching sessions and expressed their displeasure with downvotes.

  (it's after all the studio
  that made Baldur's Gate)

Games studios have always struck me as a sort of Ship of Theseus - if the ownership, the product quality, the game engines and assets, and 99% of the employees have changed but the logo remains the same - does being loyal to the logo make sense?

Well, presumably the branding entity still owns the IP and trade secrets like the source code so even if an entirely different team comes on, they can still reuse that.

I'm not in the game industry at all, but, do you or anyone know how this goes? What goes into a game design? How much more detail and story and worldbuilding is there behind the scenes?

I mean if it's anything like software development, the answer will for the most part be "well there's actually nothing here". A lot of sequels feel bolted on in that regard, where they just took elements from the original game, world and story and build on top of that.

Unless the changeover happens all at once, there'd still be some cultural and knowledge transfer. It may not be the same company, but I don't think it's an entirely different company.

BioWare is a good case study since a few articles and books have been written about their history (one of the co-founders also has a few videos on YouTube about how they managed the business).

If you read enough of of them you can see BioWare has had three phases in their life:

1. Shattered Steel to Mass Effect 2, where they were largely independent and taking on feast-or-famine work (more of the former given the quality of their work at the time)

2. Mass Effect 3 to The Old Republic, which ringed-in the EA era and cracks in the quality of their work start to show. The end of this era is also when the co-founders and some key contributors to their past games left.

3. Dragon Age 3 to Anthem, which ringed-in stronger ties with EA—specifically having to work with Frostbite—and where we see that a lot of the problems we saw in the last era were probably chronic rather than acute. Lots of key contributor churn.

> they promised your decisions matter; but none of them do, you choose at the end between 3 buttons

At the end of the day your decisions still matter to you. The debate around the ME3 ending has left me with a lot more respect for the ME3 ending over time than after I played through it the first time.

Which of those 3 buttons a player chose often says so much about their combined playthrough of all three games. Linearly in terms of that playthrough so many gamers felt they only had "one choice" at the end, and that is an amazing psychological trick because the statistics BioWare revealed show that among players that did complete the final choice it was an almost even split (and a surprising number of players took the interesting fourth choice of just quitting there and not making a choice).

I think the ME3 ending even before the Extended Cut (and more importantly the final Citadel "cleanup" DLC) was better than a lot of gamers gave it credit for, but the problem with it was that it was a very hard situation to see the forest from your particular gameplay tree.

(Now, Anthem from a story perspective I have a lot less respect for. It's a weird KOTOR B-Plot [almost entirely recycled] with the Star Wars filed off.)

> they promised your decisions matter; but none of them do, you choose at the end between 3 buttons

Your decisions do technically affect the ending, but it's subtle and not very satisfying. The outcome of every major decision in the trilogy is assigned a numeric value and added to a "war assets" sum as you progress through the game. Different decisions result in slightly different amounts of war assets, and actions in the third game were heavily weighted over previous games. The size of that number changes each ending very slightly.

https://www.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/End_Game_Chart_-_Wit...

I think that falls under "if the player didn't see it, it didn't happen."

And Anthem is on the same tangent. The Internet never forgets, or it takes a damn long time before it does.

Game publishers are drug dealers. Complain all you want on the internet; you're still addicted to escaping this reality daily/weekly. Kids also don't know or care about this stuff, and they just bug their parents to buy the latest.

k, cept I did care when I was a child and I notice kids care today. There is a reason why minecraft and fortnite are more popular than a huge ip or something that would be expected to sell extremely high.

Fortnite and Minecraft are huge ip though.

Right, but they created their own huge-ness instead of buying it from something else that was already huge.

Gaming does have the particularity of being as expensive as you want it to be, or as cheap as you want it to be. I don't think there are many other markets where you can get hundreds of hours of genuine heartfelt value for $15.

Because EA somehow got exclusive licenses to things they should not be legally allowed to have exclusive licenses for.

Some other game maker would crush EA in the market if they were allowed to use NFL logo's and names.

I'm still salty about EA getting the exclusive NFL license. NFL 2K5 was a better game than Madden and they made the ballsy move of selling it for $20 brand new the day it came out. EA got so spooked they spent who knows how much locking down an exclusive license.

Though in hindsight who knows what a 2K NFL game would look like today. With the way they butchered their NBA games I don't have much faith that an NFL game would be any better.

NBA 2k today suffers from the same problem Madden suffers from today: no studios competing with them to push them into making a better product.

Who knows if the latest PES (which looks absurdly good) will push EA to make fifa worth a damn again, but at least we’ve got choices in futbol games now.

Edit: No seriously, look at this trailer for PES2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_89i5H1zAeU it's amazing

EA can continue to do that, because they have FIFA, which for them is still a major source of revenue that's not going away anytime soon.

FIFA, Madden, NBA2k, NHL, MLB, they have all the sports licenses.

I haven't figured out how they are still releasing a new game every year - they really should be releasing every season, or really, every team, as a DLC. The content is where it is at, not the engine.

2K is not owned by EA. EA's continual inability to not ship broken basketball games is at this point a running joke.

>I haven't figured out how they are still releasing a new game every year - they really should be releasing every season, or really, every team, as a DLC. The content is where it is at, not the engine.

This is easy. People pay full price every year for the new version which contains a bare minimum of changes compared to the previous (not including the roster changes). Why would they cut that gravy train off? Presumably a yearly DLC would not be priced as a full game.

>I haven't figured out how they are still releasing a new game every year. I would expect there are number of factors that militate against the approach you propose:

* Fundamentally, what EA owns is the engine. They pay license fees to the. If someone else knows how to build a clearly better <insert sport> game. If the right to use NFL branding and likenesses is worth $10/yr to the user, and EA only ever sells roster updates, you should expect the cost to EA for an exclusive license to creep closer and closer to $10/yr/user.

* The full game release justifies a $60 price point (vs the ~$10 you might hope to get for a roster update.

* My understanding is that much of the DLC/add-on revenue now comes in the form of "power-ups" for the create-a-player modes. Progress on that track can be reset in a new edition to force pay-to-upgrade users to pay again. With a perpetual edition, this dynamic either creates power creep (which alienates the bulk of your users who refuse to pay extra and can no longer compete) or forces you to dilute the power-ups to the point they're no longer desirable to high-value customers.

* From a staffing perspective, light, continuous updates are easier to staff for than spinning up a full scale rebuild once every platform generation, with less risk of blowing the new edition and losing your incumbency. If Madden 2020 releases a wildly unpopular change, you can fix it in Madden 2021.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com