Can a Fanbase Ever Be "Owed" Something?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

No. The problem with fans is that they invest themselves in a franchise, and this makes them believe that they have ownership of it, and thus control. It's "theirs", in their minds, meant ONLY for them, and must follow their whims and desires, or they have been "robbed".

As usual, I'm going to take the equilibrium as my answer.

Fanbases are owed as much as the Creators, depending on circumstance.

What do I mean by this? Well, let's look at Video games. We have many developers who buy IPs and sit on them. And they simply hold them hostage. Take Dawn of War 3 for example. Dawn of War is a much beloved IP that is the face of Warhammer 40k RTS games. The first iteration was almost universally praised, the second had a little more of a divisive split but was the top selling RTS of its time, and the third...

... The third...

This was a train wreck indicative of our current industry. Let's find something that triggers nostalgia, strip off most of the bells and whistles that made people love it, and promise it back as potential dlc.

Upgrades to units in the past games were made into separate units just to pad the unit roster out more. Lascannon Devastators used to just be an upgrade. Same as Sniper Scouts.

Instead of the normal four races, we got 3 with a promise of DLC maybe. The animation and art style was not well received. The game was originally designed to be an grindy slog that nickeled and dimed you for every skull to unlock new stuff.

In the end, they didn't make a good product for the fans of the series. They made a good product in the eyes of the investors who want every game to have recurrent monetization strategies. And when the game didn't live up to the wants of the people who would actually buy the game, they abandoned it citing:

While Dawn of War 3 has a dedicated player base, it didn?t hit the targets we were expecting at launch, and it hasn?t performed the way we had hoped since. It?s been tough for us as professionals who want to make great games for our players, and for us as people who care a lot about what we do.

When a game underperforms, plans need to change. With Dawn of War 3, we simply don?t have the foundation we need to produce major content. We?re working in close partnership with Sega and Games Workshop to determine the best course of action, while shifting focus to other projects within our portfolio.

.

They didn't have the targets they needed because they didn't create the Dawn of War Experience most gamers want. Sure, it scratched a few itches, but in their own words, not enough to warrant

In short, I'm owed enough to warrant my purchase. And yes, that can be anything. Borderlands 3 won't get my money because I really don't like Randy Pitchford and I abhor Epic games. It sucks that an IP that I like has to be tainted with things I do not want to support, and that my lack of purchase will prevent me from supporting the dozens of employees who worked night and day on this title. I hate that. but not as much as I hate Randy Pitchford and Epic games.

Likewise, A creator doesn't have to be beholden to the whims of their fans. They should create what they want to create. Nothing should hold them back. But... if they want to have sales, yes, they have to think about the public that has supported them in the past. If I created a game that rivaled Overwatch and followed it up with a 60 dollar dress up simulator where the only combat is blasting down doors to get to the next microtransaction... No, I can not ask the fans to give it a shot.

ObsidianJones:
Upgrades to units in the past games were made into separate units just to pad the unit roster out more. Lascannon Devastators used to just be an upgrade. Same as Sniper Scouts.

It didn't hurt DoW was a practically picture-perfect replication of the tabletop game with added progression mechanics to fit the RTS genre. It was so accurate you could snapshot your army at almost any point during a game, translate that to an exact tabletop point value, and it would almost certainly be tabletop-legal. Didn't hurt DoW units were actually better-balanced and not subject to power creep compared to the tabletop game (seriously, fuck 3rd edition Wraithlords in particular).

Which is where later games in the series fell dramatically short.

Eacaraxe:

ObsidianJones:
Upgrades to units in the past games were made into separate units just to pad the unit roster out more. Lascannon Devastators used to just be an upgrade. Same as Sniper Scouts.

It didn't hurt DoW was a practically picture-perfect replication of the tabletop game with added progression mechanics to fit the RTS genre. It was so accurate you could snapshot your army at almost any point during a game, translate that to an exact tabletop point value, and it would almost certainly be tabletop-legal. Didn't hurt DoW units were actually better-balanced and not subject to power creep compared to the tabletop game (seriously, fuck 3rd edition Wraithlords in particular).

Which is where later games in the series fell dramatically short.

I'd argue that DoW 2, especially in late game, mostly consisted of tabletop legal compositions at around the 2k points mark, unless you took serious losses or cheesed out. But I'm also partial to DoW 2 for being closer to 40k Company of Heroes and being much better at delivering the flavor of the tabletop in a way that DoW never really did. But no matter which of the 2 DoWs you preferred, they both emulated the tabletop to some degree and tried to stay within the same scope as the tabletop, that being 4-5 squads and 2-3 vehicles and a commander per side.

DoW 3 tried to emulate the scale of Armageddon and it is nowhere near as appealing as a result. That it also took major design cues from MOBAs with hero units that easily wipes out half the opponents army in one go certainly didn't help. Where previous DoWs had been about best using your basic units to get the upper hand, DoW 3 is about using your heroes with the basic units as little more then fodder. This change of scale, combined with an art and UI style that made it nigh impossible to make out what was happening on screen during larger fights (and they were all larger fights), basically drove away whatever core audience remained for the DoW games.

I won't claim to ever be owed a proper DoW 3, but if Relic makes a game that doesn't appeal to me they ain't getting my money. That applies to every publisher or developer out there. We all do well to remember that our relation to any given game developer is transactional in nature, they make a product that we purchase and beyond delivering a product we want they are not beholden to us in any way. Similarly, we should never feel beholden to a developer just because they are cool on Twitter, made our favorite game or whatever, because ultimately we are just a payday to them.

Gethsemani:
I'd argue that DoW 2, especially in late game, mostly consisted of tabletop legal compositions at around the 2k points mark, unless you took serious losses or cheesed out. But I'm also partial to DoW 2 for being closer to 40k Company of Heroes and being much better at delivering the flavor of the tabletop in a way that DoW never really did. But no matter which of the 2 DoWs you preferred, they both emulated the tabletop to some degree and tried to stay within the same scope as the tabletop, that being 4-5 squads and 2-3 vehicles and a commander per side.

I can see the argument, but DoW's comparability was pretty uniform throughout, except for the late-game and then largely thanks to GW's whacky-ass valuation on new and unique units, and armies introduced in late 2E/3E. Not to mention dumpster fire unit balance. It really shined in the 1.0-1.5K army range, though.

At the end of the day, I suppose it depends on how much you minded DoW1's base building. Personally, I didn't.

...with hero units that easily wipes out half the opponents army in one go...

Not gonna lie, especially in 3E, depending on army that was pretty much how it was depending on army comp. Back in my day, I once took a single Wraithlord against literally every other miniature my best friend and I owned put together, rules be damned, just to prove a point about how OP Wraithlords were. That was one 170-point (IIRC) unit against an army of probably 12,000. I won.

That included an attempt to dogpile it with Bjorn Fell-Handed, Abaddon, Azrael, and a goddamn Bloodthirster, in a 4v1 melee. The Wraithlord killed them all and only took a single wound.

The Rogue Wolf:
No. The problem with fans is that they invest themselves in a franchise, and this makes them believe that they have ownership of it, and thus control. It's "theirs", in their minds, meant ONLY for them, and must follow their whims and desires, or they have been "robbed".

That's just the bad, selfish fans.

Good fans strive to comprehend the true nature of a franchise with the least bias possible and debate for its sake. They accept others' opinions and use them to sculpt a complex image of what a franchise really is, they genuinely want to have the franchise succeed and their rage stems not from a place of self-interest but rather from a place of genuine love and caring for the wellbeing (or fundamentally the being, in some cases) of something they love.

When you are a fan of something, it becomes a part of you to one degree or another. It's unavoidable that one will feel some measure of ownership about a part of them, that's human nature. The only alternative is being only ever casually into things, never caring enough to let anything be a part of you.

Friction erupts when people who never strove to comprehend a series or a fandom have the arrogant expectation of their opinion mattering equivalently to those for whom contemplating and debating these issues has been a fixture of their being for years or even decades in some cases. It's not really their fault cause from the outside you wouldn't realize that you were arrogant in suggesting changes about a thing you are ill-informed regarding but still, whatever reaction you're met with is pretty deserved.

Well, Eacaraxe. Thanks for illustrating my point. You wanted Reitman's version. Anything Pascal did is clearly just the worst.

Because her version is not what you wanted.

I remember quite a few years ago (well over a decade) Finding out that people hated the Commodore 64 Ghostbusters because it "broke canon". I spent a lot of time on that game as a kid, I didn't see it then. It might not have followed the movies exactly but I don't NEED things to be a carbon copy to be classed as part of the canon. In fact, a story SHOULD change to suit the needs of a story. I found out that day that fanboys of Ghostbusters were pretty trash and just wanted Ghostbusters again. (It's why everyone loved Force Awakens and I didn't. I don't need a carbon copy of the first Star Wars, that doesn't excite me. Everything was stretched and strained so much to fit the old movie that the new story was non-sensical.)

Let me just add. I don't like what Pascal did. I don't like the movie. Pretending Reitman's version is better without actually getting it is believing in something without evidence.

Eacaraxe:
Again, refer to the SMP hack. We know exactly where Pascal wanted to go, and what her intent was. She wanted a Ghostbusters cinematic universe to cover for SPE's lack of a tentpole franchise, and to follow the "cinematic universe" fad of the 2010's. Case in point, see the accompanying Russo brothers project with Channing Tatum, that was also a pre-production clusterfuck but ultimately killed to mollify Feig. The key point being, as evidenced in the e-mails, Pascal wanted a break from the original films in order to build a foundation for that.

Here's the difference between the original Ghostbusters' production and release, and Pascal's intended direction. The original movie was lightning in a bottle, in every conceivable way, and everyone involved with the project knew it. Writers who cut their teeth on National Lampoon got together with actors from SNL, whose talents were actually complimentary to each others' and whose egos didn't interfere with the creative process, managed to get a studio to give them a great big pile of money and stay out of the creative process, and everything that could have gone miraculously right during the production did.

In other words, everything you don't do if you want to establish a cinematic universe. Which is what Pascal did do, to protect and mollify Feig even past the point he was clearly in over his head and had lost creative control. Feig demanded auteur status for a project that had to be studio-driven to succeed in its intended goal...when Feig was a poor fit to begin with, and so was the IP for a "cinematic universe".

That's on Pascal's head, not Feig's.

Pascal has been focussed on cinematic universe for a long time. See last year's Oscar winner that put a WHOLE cinematic universe into ONE movie and was critically acclaimed . Seen by many as THE Spiderman movie. Maybe that shouldn't be Ghostbusters. That's up for debate. They've made many variations of Ghostbusters, there are so many stories to tell, so I don't know why a Cinematic Universe wouldn't work. Except for the fact that you cant have the same characters in all movies in a cinematic universe (so, to me, getting rid of the OLD characters reduced the chances of a cinematic universe.)

Reitman was excised because Fieg didn't want producers interfering with production. Which, to me, was a mistake. I don't understand why Pascal thought he was THE director for this movie. The movie ending up trying to add the old movies in which is the opposite of Pascal's vision so clearly she didn't get her way. Yes, she wanted him out before even hiring Fieg, but he was probably SAVED by those hacks. Fieg was notorious for fighting with the actors about his vision, particularly McCarthy. Again, I don't know why Fieg was picked and I don't think he was a good choice.

So to sum up, Sony, for a long time, had decided Reitman was NOT the right choice. Pascal was just the last to say no. I would like to find out why others said no, but we can be confident about Pascal. It wasn't a reboot that her vision was. Vemon and Into the Spiderverse is what we get when her vision isn't interfered with. Amazing Spiderman is what you get when she is interfered with. I don't know if Reitman's vision is better, but Pascal can go for her vision if she gets the funding.

And this loops back to the start. You thought Reitman is the way to go. I'm looking for a good movie. Ghostbusters 2016 isn't it. That doesn't prove Reitman WAS the way to go. At all. But I'll guess we'll see next year.

As to studio-driven to succeed... wasn't the first Ghostbusters disproving this point? The studio got out to of the way and let the writers/ actors do their thing. Are you saying that Reitman needs to be micromanaged?

trunkage:
Well, Eacaraxe. Thanks for illustrating my point. You wanted Reitman's version. Anything Pascal did is clearly just the worst.

Put more words in my mouth, why don't you.

Actually, I didn't want a third Ghostbusters movie at all. The first movie was pretty much a one-and-done affair for how miraculous its production was, the second was...okay, I guess? and demonstrated completely why Ghostbusters just wasn't franchise material. What has been said about Akroyd's "Hellbent" script made it out to be a batshit dumpster fire (though, to be fair, his treatment for the first was just as loony, and saved by Reitman and Ramis), and ultimately it was adapted into a nice, respectful coda in the form of the video game.

Let me just add. I don't like what Pascal did. I don't like the movie. Pretending Reitman's version is better without actually getting it is believing in something without evidence.

See above. My issue is with Pascal's lack of professionalism and ethics in the face of Ramis' death. I could not care less about Reitman's treatment; it could have been Manos the Hands of Fate, Reitman didn't deserve the way he was treated.

Pascal has been focussed on cinematic universe for a long time. See last year's Oscar winner that put a WHOLE cinematic universe into ONE movie and was critically acclaimed . Seen by many as THE Spiderman movie.

You want to talk a whole lot about Into the Spider-Verse. Citations, please, on how strong her creative role and influence was on the film. Because from where I sit, her name was on the movie because she green-lit it as a professional courtesy, as is customary (see, DCEU); the project was predominantly Lord's, Miller's, and Arad's. She was out as SPE chair before the movie even entered pre-production.

As to studio-driven to succeed... wasn't the first Ghostbusters disproving this point? The studio got out to of the way and let the writers/ actors do their thing. Are you saying that Reitman needs to be micromanaged?

Read my post before commenting, please.

Ghostbusters succeeded because it was an auteur project.

Establishing a cinematic universe needs studio-driven projects.

Ghostbusters was a bad fit for a cinematic universe to begin with.

Amy Pascal wanted a cinematic universe. She chose Ghostbusters and decided to try making it fit.

Trying to make it fit meant ousting Reitman, using Ramis' death.

She handpicked Feig, who wanted an auteur project. She bent over backwards to accommodate Feig, who ended up over his head and went on to make a dumpster fire.

Except, Feig was never the problem. He was a symptom of the problem. The problem was Pascal trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole, literally over dead bodies.

Frankly, it was the same mistake Kathleen Kennedy made with TLJ. The project needed to be studio-driven to achieve its goal, the producer decided to take the auteur tact instead, and hired the wrong person. Except, Kennedy's gotten the calculus wrong on every Star Wars film after TFA: the main movies need the studio control, the side movies should be the auteurs' playground.

That's where Feige manages to get everything right with the MCU. At the end of the day, MCU's meticulously studio-driven, top to bottom. Except, Feige is excellent at identifying which projects are linchpins for the MCU and therefore need strict studio control, and which have room for auteurism. That means he can hire best-fit directors according to studio need. Russo brothers play ball, so they got linchpin projects (WS, CW, IW, EG); GotG, BP, T:R, and CM needed an auteur's touch, so they got Gunn, Coogler, Waititi, and Boden/Fleck.

Eacaraxe:

ObsidianJones:
Upgrades to units in the past games were made into separate units just to pad the unit roster out more. Lascannon Devastators used to just be an upgrade. Same as Sniper Scouts.

It didn't hurt DoW was a practically picture-perfect replication of the tabletop game with added progression mechanics to fit the RTS genre. It was so accurate you could snapshot your army at almost any point during a game, translate that to an exact tabletop point value, and it would almost certainly be tabletop-legal. Didn't hurt DoW units were actually better-balanced and not subject to power creep compared to the tabletop game (seriously, fuck 3rd edition Wraithlords in particular).

Which is where later games in the series fell dramatically short.

Actually, I'm going with Gethsemani's idea. It makes so much more sense that I only blame getting into the Warhammer universe (yes, both FB and 40k) via Dark Crusade.

Which is still the best in my opinion. I had to put that separately. It was one of the only games that the second after the credits rolled, I replayed it instantly. I think I skipped through the credits to do it all again.

Anyway, thinking of DoW as 2k point battles and DoW 2 as 750-1000 range, it all feels so much better.

Gethsemani:
I won't claim to ever be owed a proper DoW 3, but if Relic makes a game that doesn't appeal to me they ain't getting my money. That applies to every publisher or developer out there. We all do well to remember that our relation to any given game developer is transactional in nature, they make a product that we purchase and beyond delivering a product we want they are not beholden to us in any way. Similarly, we should never feel beholden to a developer just because they are cool on Twitter, made our favorite game or whatever, because ultimately we are just a payday to them.

Again, I'm going to thank you for making my thoughts more salient. I don't feel like I'm owed a Dawn of War 3. In fact, seeing that Cinematic Trailer for DoW 3 for the first time, I felt so thankful and blessed. The tone seemed right. The sentiment of the bodies just piling up for Khorne. I felt it. I felt it in my heart and I was overjoyed. Even though the space marines always looked too skinny, I had so much hope.

And it was an utter disappointment. But the issue was always the fact that I was ok with that. That didn't bother me. What bothered me is the quote I put up. The sentiment that it's gamer's fault. That there was a core audience who "got it". And the rest of us plebs never gave it a real chance because of nostalgia, hatred of change, or what have you.

I feel I'm owed Genuine Discourse. That's it. You don't owe me a product, but you're not allowed to spin and create a false narrative to preserve your ego or try to shine it up so future investors don't immediately run away when they saw you enter the pitch meeting.

You as designers thought it was a good idea to go with a cartoon aesthetic when the Warhammer universe has always been about Grimdark. It's the very thing that coined that term. And even if some people didn't mind the graphics, it's like taking Attack on Titan and giving it to Teen Titans Go animation studio and asking them to replicate the entire anime in TTG style. That marks a huge tonal shift that will rub fans the wrong way.

You as designers decided to take away Sync kills. Something that brought in gamers like me and made us fans of the IP. The raw visceral carnage that Starcraft, Total Annihilation, Age Of Empires, etc didn't come close to supplying. Yes, it slowed the 'pace of combat' down. But it crafted a world. There are no heroes in this universe. Only Victors.

You as designers decided to give us less in every respect. From maps, to unit roster, to even playable races.

You as designers decided to make the grind tedious and horrid.

You as designers took out the cover mechanic that brought some depth and strategy that made the DoW series stand out. Yes, there was still visibility blockers, and I'll give props for that. But Cover saves is actually a THING in the Wh 40k Tabletop. You somehow thought it was a good idea to take out a much beloved mechanic that made people feel it was faithful to the IP and replaced it with magical force bubbles. Interesting.

You as designers gave us a game that fell short. And you know what? That's ok. Not every game can be good. I don't expect that.

But when your media presence is shifting the blame to others instead of your poor decisions. Instead of listening to gamers and seeing what they want, you decided to make the game that you thought gamers want or the game you want to play. And fine, go do that.

But don't expect any financial success when you craft a game that suits your interests, and not the world. And don't expect to come out unscathed when you BS a response saying how you crafted such a wonderful game and some core people see it, but the unwashed masses just doesn't get it..

That is my biggest problem with game developers today. It is the gulf that art and video games can never cross. Video Games can never be true art because Art is usually created by a person's desire to express something. It is a labor intensive project that can inspire 7 billions theories, thoughts, and even disgust... but only needs One person to care about it so much that they will purchase it and you can create more.

Gamers as a whole need to be considered. Not what you think they want. What we actually want, especially if we're talking about an ongoing ip that already has successful iterations. If we say don't touch this element that we've enjoyed previously, and then you as a developer say "No, we need to touch it. Trust us, it'll make the game better", what you're saying is "We know how this game is supposed to be played. Shut up and be good customers and just buy it because we slapped a familiar name and aesthetic on it".

Let it be known, Developers have Every Right to steer the game where they want it to go. But just like a fanbase is never owed something, the creators are not owed our support. They are not owed a trust that their decisions are better than our wants. And that's an optic that I think is very much loss when these discussions come about. A creator can create whatever. Go ahead. Do it. That's apart of what makes the human experience worth it.

But a creator is not owed support. They don't deserve our money just because they made a product. The answer lies that both parties need to come into alignment for the venue to be successful. A creator needs to find the right balance between what they envisioned and what needs to be in it to have an appeal if they want to be financially supported by the creation. And it must be good enough to create a fanbase around it. The fanbase is only 'owed' what they purchased, not what they wanted what they purchased to be. That is the interplay that we must get back to.

God, I got DoW3 free with humble bundle, and I still felt like I paid too much for it.

Eacaraxe:
The first movie was pretty much a one-and-done affair for how miraculous its production was, the second was...okay, I guess? and demonstrated completely why Ghostbusters just wasn't franchise material. What has been said about Akroyd's "Hellbent" script made it out to be a batshit dumpster fire (though, to be fair, his treatment for the first was just as loony, and saved by Reitman and Ramis), and ultimately it was adapted into a nice, respectful coda in the form of the video game.

Definitely agree that it should have been left at one. I would point out that Pascal wanted to reboot the whole thing, perhaps making it franchiseable. But that was a failure.

Pascal has been focussed on cinematic universe for a long time. See last year's Oscar winner that put a WHOLE cinematic universe into ONE movie and was critically acclaimed . Seen by many as THE Spiderman movie.

You want to talk a whole lot about Into the Spider-Verse. Citations, please, on how strong her creative role and influence was on the film. Because from where I sit, her name was on the movie because she green-lit it as a professional courtesy, as is customary (see, DCEU); the project was predominantly Lord's, Miller's, and Arad's. She was out as SPE chair before the movie even entered pre-production.

Amy Pascal left Sony only a couple of months after that dinner ousting Reitman. She created Pascal Production which has produced Ghostbusters, Venom and Into the Spiderverse as part of her exit deal. She also did the Girl with the Tattoo thing last year as well. Pascal is generally a very removed producer, but she still runs the company that made all those movies.

Frankly, it was the same mistake Kathleen Kennedy made with TLJ. The project needed to be studio-driven to achieve its goal, the producer decided to take the auteur tact instead, and hired the wrong person. Except, Kennedy's gotten the calculus wrong on every Star Wars film after TFA: the main movies need the studio control, the side movies should be the auteurs' playground.

As stated, I don't like Force Awakens. I have never seen it again, and never want to. If a gun was held to my head, I'd watch Solo or the Prequels than TFA. Hell, even those stupid Ewok movies were better.

The Last Jedi (with Rogue One) saved the Star Wars franchise in my eyes. For the first time in a few years, I'm actually considering going to see the third episode with some friends. I know I'm in the minority. I'm highly aware TLJ is very flawed. It's a barely adequate movie. But the Star Wars franchise had already been dragged through the mud for decades, so its a very low bar.

That's where Feige manages to get everything right with the MCU. At the end of the day, MCU's meticulously studio-driven, top to bottom. Except, Feige is excellent at identifying which projects are linchpins for the MCU and therefore need strict studio control, and which have room for auteurism. That means he can hire best-fit directors according to studio need. Russo brothers play ball, so they got linchpin projects (WS, CW, IW, EG); GotG, BP, T:R, and CM needed an auteur's touch, so they got Gunn, Coogler, Waititi, and Boden/Fleck.

Phase 1 and lots of Phase 2 were studio-driven. It's why most of it is not very good. Iron Man 1 was a fluke, probably because they literally didn't have scripts yet while they were filming. The Dude does not abide no scripts. Fiege was driving his franchise into the ground and thankfully let there be less studio control after his Ultron, Dark World and Antman screw ups. Compare the Avengers 1 that looks like Agents of Shield and Ultron which actually put proper lighting in and gave scenes a cohesive theme (even though the story was less cohesive). Ultron actually looked like a movie. Avengers 1 looks like a movie you find on TV. MCU now succeeds because Fiege takes a massive backseat.

No. I've seen good arguments in the thread, supporting many different perspectives. But in the end, if you feel you are "owed" anything as a fan (and I know this is a "bad" "you are starting an argument" "trigger" word) you are acting entitled. There's nothing wrong with being disappointed by a product or production, but feeling like "you were owed better..." just simply, that's entitlement... you are acting entitled at that point. Its a subtle difference maybe, but "fans" aren't "owed" anything.

Kyrian007:
No. I've seen good arguments in the thread, supporting many different perspectives. But in the end, if you feel you are "owed" anything as a fan (and I know this is a "bad" "you are starting an argument" "trigger" word) you are acting entitled. There's nothing wrong with being disappointed by a product or production, but feeling like "you were owed better..." just simply, that's entitlement... you are acting entitled at that point. Its a subtle difference maybe, but "fans" aren't "owed" anything.

But isn't a creator who makes a sequel to something projecting it to be profitable enough to justify its production doing so from a position of being entitled to the money of the fans in return? At least some segment of the fanbase will buy things based on name alone and they know this so they plan with this factor in mind.

I think it's a worst sort of entitlement to abuse franchise recognition to peddle something nobody wants because you can only do that when you are feeling entitled to some baseline profit and cause you're not confident that an original IP you create with those same themes will be interesting enough by itself to create a comparable buzz around it without the franchise supporting it (the thing we, the fans, made into a thing through our support).

If entitlement is wrong then it's wrong when either group does it. If we are to say nobody gets to be entitled and that translates to no more soulless cash-grabs and void milking of franchises being done then I'm willing to agree with you but as long as companies behave as though they're entitled to some profit based on our fandom, we get, through the stability our financial backing being the backbone of a franchise that allows it to spread its wings, to be entitled to a product as stable as our financial backing of it.(so again, if something is struggling and needs to make some changes to stay afloat, that's understandable, in other cases though, critical changes ought be taken very very carefully).

It's kind of a problematic question.

Taking the Gurm example, most people bought his books and supported his work with the implicit promise that they'd get a conclusion, good or bad. For him to reneg on that and take his sweet ass time releasing The Winds of Winter and to jump from one side project to another feels pretty inconsiderate for the fans that got him where he is now.

On the other hand, I'm really not down with the whole concept of forcing someone to do something against their will, especially when it comes to creative endeavors. Gurm will take his time, and if he never releases an ending to ASoIaF, well that'll be too bad.

Fanbases can very often be very entitled, but I feel like the creator-fan relation is a two way street where both party holds certain responsibilities towards the other.

Eacaraxe:

Bethesda admitted the ending had its faults, and while standing behind the original product gave it a conclusion and epilogue in the form of Broken Steel, a paid DLC. Still not even a fraction of the controversy surrounding ME3. What was missing in FO3's case that was present in ME3's, what was that key X-factor that caused the controversy over ME3's ending to erupt into an industry-defining moment but not FO3's?

FO3 wasn't narrative-driven but exploration-driven; it was an open-world game composed of several unrelated stories (each one with its own beginning, middle and end) and a main story that wasn't much more impactful than the side missions. Even if the ending didn't make full sense (seriously, Fawkes? Why don't you, the friendly super mutant immune to radiation, enter into the radioactive chamber, purify our water and save the civilization; instead of needlessly making me a martyr in the process?) the ending didn't make everything else seem to have been a waste of time, and didn't pull a Deux-ex machina (it was consistent in tone and execution to the rest of the game).

The X-factor was in part the starchild (the Deux-ex machina that was inconsistent with the rest of the tone), and having 3 equally unsatisfying endings to choose from. And if you play them all, each time you have to play through 15+ minutes so overdramatized that it just keeps dragging as heck. At least with FO3 once you're reach the end, you're as good as done.

If you promise to sell a game on Steam, and take money from people on Steam or on the basis it will be on Steam, you owe the fans that it be on Steam.

If Epic pays you to break your promise, and you do so, you're a shitty company and deserve to fail.

Saelune:
If you promise to sell a game on Steam, and take money from people on Steam or on the basis it will be on Steam, you owe the fans that it be on Steam.

If Epic pays you to break your promise, and you do so, you're a shitty company and deserve to fail.

That's a different scenario though. If someone gives a company money... they ARE owed the product they paid for. Or at least, they are owed a product. If that product doesn't live up to expectations... its back to fans not being owed anything, let the buyer beware. That's why I don't have any sympathy for people who preorder. Yeah, it sucks that Deep Silver decided to take preorders for a game on Steam that later became Epic exclusive... maybe people will know better than to preorder any of their games next time. Every publisher has lost my preorder dollar, I'm not a rich person or spending other people's money. I'm not giving money on the promise of some product I can use sometime in the future, I'll only pay for a product that is playable within minutes of my paying for it, has positive critical reviews, and actually is functional.

No. A lot of fans like to *think* they're owed things, out of a sense of involvement, investment, or just plain entitlement, but the fact of the matter is that the only people who are *owed* anything from any artistic enterprise are the artist/author themselves and (if applicable) whoever commissioned the work in the first place.

If I pay an artist thousands of pounds to create a sculpture for me, I am owed a certain quality of work and craftsmanship. If I have bought the last four video games in a franchise I am owed precisely the square root of fuck all (unless of course I am an investor in the developer, in which instance the first case applies).

Saelune:
If you promise to sell a game on Steam, and take money from people on Steam or on the basis it will be on Steam, you owe the fans that it be on Steam.

If Epic pays you to break your promise, and you do so, you're a shitty company and deserve to fail.

Not to say Deep Silver or Epic is blameless here, which they aren't, there's another lesson here too.

Don't Pre-order. Ever.

Because time and time again, we've seen that companies that already have your money don't really care if you're happy after that. The fact they got your money weeks or months before they had to deliver anything is just the icing on the cake for them.

Wait until the product is out, then decide if you're happy with the conditions you're buying under(Game quality, company behaviour) before actually forking over the cash. If we keep enabling corporate BS, they're gonna keep pulling it, because they already know we're gonna pay regardless of how much we complain and we'll pay in advance for the privilege.

CaitSeith:
FO3 wasn't narrative-driven but exploration-driven; it was an open-world game composed of several unrelated stories (each one with its own beginning, middle and end) and a main story that wasn't much more impactful than the side missions......and having 3 equally unsatisfying endings to choose from.

You're wrong on both counts, and both cases boil down to the same root cause: you're not paying enough attention to what the games are telling you.

Practically every side quest and area in FO3 is driven by environmental and expository storytelling, and every last one has as its core theme the Capital wasteland is dying absent intervention. That ultimate intervention which will give the Capital wasteland a chance at survival being the main quest. Exploration was in service to narrative, not the other way round.

Meanwhile, organic/synthetic conflict is the driving theme of the entire ME trilogy, and the equation of Reapers to divinity was established in...ME1. And, would it surprise you that synthesis was actually the most heavily foreshadowed ending path in the entire trilogy, if you're paying attention?

Eacaraxe:
Meanwhile, organic/synthetic conflict is the driving theme of the entire ME trilogy, and the equation of Reapers to divinity was established in...ME1. And, would it surprise you that synthesis was actually the most heavily foreshadowed ending path in the entire trilogy, if you're paying attention?

Now that's revisionism, like reaching to a conclusion and then looking solely for clues that support it. ME1 presented the organic/synthetic conflict, but it wasn't the driving theme. It presented the Reapers as eldritch gods, keeping their motives obscure on purpose; but they may as well had been hacking the Geth as the AI equivalent of indoctrinating people, and just using them for their own unknown agenda. In ME2 the conflict had very little emphasis in the main missions and most of the side missions (so little that the exposition on Geth's ideological leanings towards organics is optional), with the collectors taking the place of the geth as the Reapers' assault force (and this time the Reapers' hinted motive was to be simply to create more Reapers). Only in ME3 the writers decided that the Reapers' motive was purely the organic/synthetic conflict.

Attention was paid (it's the abundance of attention that made ME3 ending such a big deal). ME3 didn't just had synthesis ending, did it? A good ME3 ending would had synthesis always happening, but your actions decided what happened afterwards. ME2 ending was pretty good in giving as sense of control and consequences; ME3 ending dropped the ball in that regard.

CaitSeith:
Now that's revisionism, like reaching to a conclusion and then looking solely for clues that support it.

A story in three videos.

Chapter 1.
Chapter 2.
Chapter 3 (only the first two minutes are pertinent, but the money shot's at 0:40).

Shall I continue?

I think it only applies to more minuscule stuff.

Eacaraxe:

CaitSeith:
FO3 wasn't narrative-driven but exploration-driven; it was an open-world game composed of several unrelated stories (each one with its own beginning, middle and end) and a main story that wasn't much more impactful than the side missions......and having 3 equally unsatisfying endings to choose from.

You're wrong on both counts, and both cases boil down to the same root cause: you're not paying enough attention to what the games are telling you.

Practically every side quest and area in FO3 is driven by environmental and expository storytelling, and every last one has as its core theme the Capital wasteland is dying absent intervention. That ultimate intervention which will give the Capital wasteland a chance at survival being the main quest. Exploration was in service to narrative, not the other way round.

Meanwhile, organic/synthetic conflict is the driving theme of the entire ME trilogy, and the equation of Reapers to divinity was established in...ME1. And, would it surprise you that synthesis was actually the most heavily foreshadowed ending path in the entire trilogy, if you're paying attention?

Did Fallout 3 have lingering character and story threads to tie up from Fallout 2 - released a decade prior - or did it just tell it's own story from beginning to apparently unsatisfying end?

Ok. Concept put into theory.

Kickstarted game Shenmue 3 announces it will be an Epic Game Store Exclusive, offers no refunds.

Points to know. When Shenmue first talked about platform, it merely stated PC. No specific mention of steam. But when talking about Requirements, it stated needing Steam Client.

Ok, Go for broke.

The Rogue Wolf:
No. The problem with fans is that they invest themselves in a franchise, and this makes them believe that they have ownership of it, and thus control. It's "theirs", in their minds, meant ONLY for them, and must follow their whims and desires, or they have been "robbed".

This, pretty much. Fans aren't owed anything really. At least in so much as if the entertainment they consume does not live up to their lofty expectations, the creator is not obligated to "fix" it or fine tune it to their whims.

Also I believe Lindsey Elis did a video that relates to this,

Canadamus Prime:

The Rogue Wolf:
No. The problem with fans is that they invest themselves in a franchise, and this makes them believe that they have ownership of it, and thus control. It's "theirs", in their minds, meant ONLY for them, and must follow their whims and desires, or they have been "robbed".

This, pretty much. Fans aren't owed anything really. At least in so much as if the entertainment they consume does not live up to their lofty expectations, the creator is not obligated to "fix" it or fine tune it to their whims.

I disagree in part.

You're talking about a subset of Fans, those who think they own it. I don't understand that mentality, but I get that it is not correct. We fans support what we love, we do not have ownership.

However, Fans are owed certain things when a creator or distributor expects compensation for their work. Faithfulness to the established Lore, A quality put together product, general appeal. Simply put, a fan is owed only the same that any customer is owed in a business transaction: A product worthy of paying.

If a fan is displeased, they have two options on how to handle it. Do not pay for it and complain. That's it.

However.

As I keep saying, this is a two way street.

Why Fans are not owed anything, Developers and Creators are owed nothing as well.

When backlash over Metro Exodus reached its fever pitch, the narrative designer apologized to the fans, but asked them to stay loyal.

Glukhovsky finishes by saying "again, we're all very sorry that you're hurt," and asks players not to "betray" the developers, "just as we will always stay faithful to you."

(Source)

2k asks Fans for help to make sure they can keep Loot Boxes legal so they can keep milking us.

In Marvel vs Capcom, a game built on Fan hype to see their favorite characters fighting it out, it was asked why fan favorites were left out. The response was thus:

When GameSpot asked Peter and Mike about missing characters like Magneto and Sentinel, they gave a response.

"If you were to actually think about it, these characters are just functions. They're just doing things," said Peter Rosas.

"Magneto, case and point, is a favorite because he has eight-way dash and he's really fast, right? Well guess what, Nova can do the same thing, Captain Marvel can do the same thing. Ultron can do the same thing."

"It's just the function that people are associating with the character, and there's no shortage of that. We made sure that all proper playstyles can be represented with our current roster."

It can not be both ways. It can not be "Fans are owed nothing so shut up and take what's coming", and then "Hey fans, we need you. You might not be getting what you want, but be faithful to us and don't let us down, ok?"

Fans are owed only due respect, an acknowledgment that their fandom makes the product the success that it is, and a creator's commitment to considering the fans' expectations with future endeavors. I say "considering" expectations because "meeting" them is always going to be impossible, e.g.: I'm a huge Halo fan who loved Halo 4 and hated Halo 5; you don't have to look far to find an equally huge Halo fan who feels exactly the opposite.

So no, if a creator gives an earnest effort to make their fans happy, they "owe" nothing, operative phrase there being "earnest." That shit that Blizzard pulled, collecting all those diehard Diablo fans together, fans who spent their time and money to be there to hear something, anything, about the next installment of Diablo on PC, only to spit a mobile Diablo game in their collective faces, and back that shit up with an incredulously snide "you guys have phones, don't you?", was nigh unforgiveable. Hell, I don't give two shits about Diablo, and I was offended FOR Diablo fans. Mobile gaming is the literal antithesis of PC gaming, so for Blizzard to think Diablo fans would be excited to hear they'd been working on a new Diablo for everyone BUT the PC fans shows a level of tone deafness bordering on impossible.

Eacaraxe:

CaitSeith:
Now that's revisionism, like reaching to a conclusion and then looking solely for clues that support it.

A story in three videos.

Chapter 1.
Chapter 2.
Chapter 3 (only the first two minutes are pertinent, but the money shot's at 0:40).

Shall I continue?

Yes, continue; because that doesn't counter the rest of what I said:

ME1 presented the organic/synthetic conflict, but it wasn't the driving theme. It presented the Reapers as eldritch gods, keeping their motives obscure on purpose; but they may as well had been hacking the Geth as the AI equivalent of indoctrinating people, and just using them for their own unknown agenda. In ME2 the conflict had very little emphasis in the main missions and most of the side missions (so little that the exposition on Geth's ideological leanings towards organics is optional), with the collectors taking the place of the geth as the Reapers' assault force (and this time the Reapers' hinted motive was to be simply to create more Reapers). Only in ME3 the writers decided that the Reapers' motive was purely the organic/synthetic conflict.

Attention was paid (it's the abundance of attention that made ME3 ending such a big deal). ME3 didn't just had synthesis ending, did it? A good ME3 ending would had synthesis always happening, but your actions decided what happened afterwards. ME2 ending was pretty good in giving as sense of control and consequences; ME3 ending dropped the ball in that regard.

ObsidianJones:

Canadamus Prime:

The Rogue Wolf:
No. The problem with fans is that they invest themselves in a franchise, and this makes them believe that they have ownership of it, and thus control. It's "theirs", in their minds, meant ONLY for them, and must follow their whims and desires, or they have been "robbed".

This, pretty much. Fans aren't owed anything really. At least in so much as if the entertainment they consume does not live up to their lofty expectations, the creator is not obligated to "fix" it or fine tune it to their whims.

I disagree in part.

You're talking about a subset of Fans, those who think they own it. I don't understand that mentality, but I get that it is not correct. We fans support what we love, we do not have ownership.

Is that not what we were talking about?

ObsidianJones:

However, Fans are owed certain things when a creator or distributor expects compensation for their work. Faithfulness to the established Lore, A quality put together product, general appeal. Simply put, a fan is owed only the same that any customer is owed in a business transaction: A product worthy of paying.

If a fan is displeased, they have two options on how to handle it. Do not pay for it and complain. That's it.

However.

As I keep saying, this is a two way street.

Why Fans are not owed anything, Developers and Creators are owed nothing as well.

When backlash over Metro Exodus reached its fever pitch, the narrative designer apologized to the fans, but asked them to stay loyal.

Glukhovsky finishes by saying "again, we're all very sorry that you're hurt," and asks players not to "betray" the developers, "just as we will always stay faithful to you."

(Source)

2k asks Fans for help to make sure they can keep Loot Boxes legal so they can keep milking us.

In Marvel vs Capcom, a game built on Fan hype to see their favorite characters fighting it out, it was asked why fan favorites were left out. The response was thus:

When GameSpot asked Peter and Mike about missing characters like Magneto and Sentinel, they gave a response.

"If you were to actually think about it, these characters are just functions. They're just doing things," said Peter Rosas.

"Magneto, case and point, is a favorite because he has eight-way dash and he's really fast, right? Well guess what, Nova can do the same thing, Captain Marvel can do the same thing. Ultron can do the same thing."

"It's just the function that people are associating with the character, and there's no shortage of that. We made sure that all proper playstyles can be represented with our current roster."

It can not be both ways. It can not be "Fans are owed nothing so shut up and take what's coming", and then "Hey fans, we need you. You might not be getting what you want, but be faithful to us and don't let us down, ok?"

You are right though, a consumer or "fan" of media is entitled to a quality product well made. Although what that might look like might vary from person to person.

Canadamus Prime:
Is that not what we were talking about?

Well, I want to say that's up to Hawki. Because the words used were 'Fanbase' and 'Fans'. To me, that applies all. And since we all are fans of something, we know not all fans are like as I described earlier.

Xprimentyl:
Fans are owed only due respect, an acknowledgment that their fandom makes the product the success that it is, and a creator?s commitment to considering the fans? expectations with future endeavors. I say ?considering? expectations because ?meeting? them is always going to be impossible, e.g.: I?m a huge Halo fan who loved Halo 4 and hated Halo 5; you don?t have to look far to find an equally huge Halo fan who feels exactly the opposite.

So no, if a creator gives an earnest effort to make their fans happy, they ?owe? nothing, operative phrase there being ?earnest.? That shit that Blizzard pulled, collecting all those diehard Diablo fans together, fans who spent their time and money to be there to hear something, anything, about the next installment of Diablo on PC, only to spit a mobile Diablo game in their collective faces, and back that shit up with an incredulously snide ?you guys have phones, don?t you??, was nigh unforgiveable. Hell, I don?t give two shits about Diablo, and I was offended FOR Diablo fans. Mobile gaming is the literal antithesis of PC gaming, so for Blizzard to think Diablo fans would be excited to hear they?d been working on a new Diablo for everyone BUT the PC fans shows a level of tone deafness bordering on impossible.

I'm actually playing Diablo 3 right now. Mobile Diablo never interested me, but I have no comprehension for hating that moment. I didn't care one way or the other.

But I never once considered Diablo 4 a thing. They're on Season 17 of Diablo 3 and I doubt they'd give that up. I thought it might be just a new character. But honestly, couldn't have cared if it was a new announcement or not. Mobile Diablo is fine if they find the audience for it. That audience won't include me but I'm not going to take Mobile Diablo away from those who want it.

trunkage:

Xprimentyl:
Fans are owed only due respect, an acknowledgment that their fandom makes the product the success that it is, and a creator?s commitment to considering the fans? expectations with future endeavors. I say ?considering? expectations because ?meeting? them is always going to be impossible, e.g.: I?m a huge Halo fan who loved Halo 4 and hated Halo 5; you don?t have to look far to find an equally huge Halo fan who feels exactly the opposite.

So no, if a creator gives an earnest effort to make their fans happy, they ?owe? nothing, operative phrase there being ?earnest.? That shit that Blizzard pulled, collecting all those diehard Diablo fans together, fans who spent their time and money to be there to hear something, anything, about the next installment of Diablo on PC, only to spit a mobile Diablo game in their collective faces, and back that shit up with an incredulously snide ?you guys have phones, don?t you??, was nigh unforgiveable. Hell, I don?t give two shits about Diablo, and I was offended FOR Diablo fans. Mobile gaming is the literal antithesis of PC gaming, so for Blizzard to think Diablo fans would be excited to hear they?d been working on a new Diablo for everyone BUT the PC fans shows a level of tone deafness bordering on impossible.

I'm actually playing Diablo 3 right now. Mobile Diablo never interested me, but I have no comprehension for hating that moment. I didn't care one way or the other.

But I never once considered Diablo 4 a thing. They're on Season 17 of Diablo 3 and I doubt they'd give that up. I thought it might be just a new character. But honestly, couldn't have cared if it was a new announcement or not. Mobile Diablo is fine if they find the audience for it. That audience won't include me but I'm not going to take Mobile Diablo away from those who want it.

Oh, I'm not saying Diablo fans are "owed" anything after the fact like Blizzard undoing the mobile Diablo game or that it never should have been a thing; that was just my example of a creator missing, in grand fashion, all three points I feel fans ARE owed (underlined above.) What Blizzard should have done is NOT hype an ominous "Diablo" announcement if all they had was a shitty mobile game and not made that announcement the denouement of BLIZZCON. I mean, you're fucking Blizzard; at BlizzCon of all events, you can't expect fans to be excited to learn you've been developing a same-y mobile game with a Diablo skin, then be snide when it's clear you fucked up. That be like Valve at "ValvCon" hinting a Half-Life announcement, unveiling a Half-Life themed Candy Crush knock-off, then saying "well fuck you ungrateful bastards; who doesn't like Candy Crush?"

It obviously behooves a creative to put out the best possible product they can to entertain their audience; but they don't owe fans every fantasy and desire for the property's direction: that's madness. They don't owe us anything and we don't owe them anything.

CaitSeith:
Yes, continue; because that doesn't counter the rest of what I said:

You learn exactly what Sovereign is before you even leave Eden Prime. It's Giger-inspired aesthetics invoke biomechanism from the very start, you fight converted biomechanoids the whole way through, Geth aesthetics subtly link Reapers and Geth in the player's mind, then at the very end the Prothean beacon message subtextually confirms it by displaying quick-cut (almost subliminal) images and videos of biomechanics. Biomechanism being a literal synthesis of organic and synthetic.

Then you go to the Citadel. Scan keepers, biomechanoids. Rogue gambling AI, get the first hint of organic/synthetic conflict in the trilogy which acts as a basic subtextual roadmap and foreshadowing for both the main conflict of ME1 and the entire trilogy. Meet Tali, learn about Geth, but not everything in her story adds up and it becomes clear Geth are a subversion of "rogue genocidal AI" trope; this is actually important, because it's the strongest reinforcement of the organic/synthetic conflict themes in the entire trilogy because it paints organics as an aggressor. Geth exception is reinforced on Feros, when Shepard sees Geth worshiping iconography evocative of Sovereign and the Reapers.

In the meantime, transhumanism, augmentation both cybernetic and genetic, its implications on the "human" state, and through subtext what defines humanity, are explored through dialogue with Kaidan, Ashley, and Joker. How Kaidan is a biotic, how being biotic isn't natural to humans but rather an engineered trait requiring cybernetic and VI augmentation and years of experimentation and training to harness, the human cost and ethics of developing human biotics, and the impact this has on the victims (the biotics themselves). How Ashley is what would pass for a cultural conservative, how she is genetically engineered being the recipient of gene therapy to cure congenital conditions and as a member of the Alliance military, and whether and how deeply genetic engineering conflicts with her beliefs and the ramifications for humanity at large. How Joker is disabled and the limitations of human medical technology, but despite this his genetic and cybernetic palliative care allows him a high quality of life and military service despite a condition that in the past would have proven terminal at an early age.

That's not limited to main characters; these are conversations that can be had with minor characters, and as part of (marked and unmarked) side quests through the entire game. The main characters are simply the case example. All of which intended to frame to the player the ME universe is already exploring the limitations of the organic state through means ethical and unethical, up to and including cybernetic and VI enhancement, pushing the character to question in the back of their minds what defines being organic.

In the middle of all this you run into the Luna rogue AI mission, but more on EDI later. Yes, that's EDI. And, no, that actually cannot be handwaved as retcon, being that mission's completion is one of the many flags carried through the trilogy in save conversion, and completion/non-completion of that mission actually changes dialog later in the trilogy. It just happens to be the case, since that was the class specialization mission, almost everyone completes it and therefore never notices.

Anyhow, you get to Virmire. Dialog between Rana and Saren lay pretty much the entire thing out. Reapers are biomechanoid and they convert organics to biomechanoids to suit their purposes, but their activities are limited to culling sufficiently-advanced organic species. On Ilos, you learn Keepers (who you, the player, already knows to be biomechanoid) are Reaper slaves. Having fought husks the entire game, the player is drawn to the conclusion biomechanism is equivalent to Reapers. Except, here's where the game (hell, entire trilogy) pulls its smartest trick: you're introduced to Indoctrination and Vigil, after constantly hearing Shepard repeat "Reapers are machines to be destroyed" the whole game.

Indoctrination introduces the notion nothing associated with the Reapers is to be trusted. Vigil tells the player understanding the Reapers is irrelevant. Shepard constantly reiterates how Reapers are only machines. Meanwhile, what the player is shown is in complete disharmony with what they're told; they're shown what's actually going on, but told to ignore it. It's all very Lovecraftian, since the game doesn't actually play on fear of the unknown to cultivate horror; the game plays on the player's experienced cognitive dissonance to cultivate horror. Simply put, the Reapers aren't scary because they're "eldritch horrors"; the Reapers are scary because they aren't.

You see, the people who wrote the game actually read and understood Lovecraft, unlike nine out of ten people who played it and claim to have. The essence of Lovecraftian horror isn't actually "The Unknown" or "Eldritch Horror", that's just what people who don't understand Lovecraft think it is; the essence of Lovecraftian horror is cognitive dissonance, and Mass Effect plays this to the hilt perfectly, toying with popular sci-fi tropes to construct a metatextual facade that builds Lovecraftian horror by inverting the equation. I could write for days about how genius ME1 is on this basis alone.

So, ME2. You're right, there's not much to say there. Except that Shepard's literally brought back from the dead as a cyborg monstrosity, pals around with a literal test tube baby, a buddy cop duo of a Quarian and Geth who basically reveal everything you were told (but not shown) about the Geth in the first game was propaganda, Joker again, and an AI with Sooper Dooper Double Seekrit Totally Not Reaper Augmentation that allows them to...think like an organic? Meanwhile you're fighting even more biomechanoids and eventually see how far Reapers' ability to biomechanize organics go, because at the end of the game you fight a giant husk.

Meanwhile, Miranda continues the line of transhumanist musings started by Ashley in ME1, Jack continues Kaidan's musings, and Joker continues being Joker. The wild card here is EDI, because dialog with her focuses on relations between organics and synthetics, organics' purpose for existing and synthetics' purpose vis-a-vis organics, and the inevitability of conflict.

But you're right, nope, nothing to see there.

Xprimentyl:

trunkage:

Xprimentyl:
Fans are owed only due respect, an acknowledgment that their fandom makes the product the success that it is, and a creator?s commitment to considering the fans? expectations with future endeavors. I say ?considering? expectations because ?meeting? them is always going to be impossible, e.g.: I?m a huge Halo fan who loved Halo 4 and hated Halo 5; you don?t have to look far to find an equally huge Halo fan who feels exactly the opposite.

So no, if a creator gives an earnest effort to make their fans happy, they ?owe? nothing, operative phrase there being ?earnest.? That shit that Blizzard pulled, collecting all those diehard Diablo fans together, fans who spent their time and money to be there to hear something, anything, about the next installment of Diablo on PC, only to spit a mobile Diablo game in their collective faces, and back that shit up with an incredulously snide ?you guys have phones, don?t you??, was nigh unforgiveable. Hell, I don?t give two shits about Diablo, and I was offended FOR Diablo fans. Mobile gaming is the literal antithesis of PC gaming, so for Blizzard to think Diablo fans would be excited to hear they?d been working on a new Diablo for everyone BUT the PC fans shows a level of tone deafness bordering on impossible.

I'm actually playing Diablo 3 right now. Mobile Diablo never interested me, but I have no comprehension for hating that moment. I didn't care one way or the other.

But I never once considered Diablo 4 a thing. They're on Season 17 of Diablo 3 and I doubt they'd give that up. I thought it might be just a new character. But honestly, couldn't have cared if it was a new announcement or not. Mobile Diablo is fine if they find the audience for it. That audience won't include me but I'm not going to take Mobile Diablo away from those who want it.

Oh, I?m not saying Diablo fans are ?owed? anything after the fact like Blizzard undoing the mobile Diablo game or that it never should have been a thing; that was just my example of a creator missing, in grand fashion, all three points I feel fans ARE owed (underlined above.) What Blizzard should have done is NOT hype an ominous ?Diablo? announcement if all they had was a shitty mobile game and not made that announcement the denouement of BLIZZCON. I mean, you?re fucking Blizzard; at BlizzCon of all events, you can?t expect fans to be excited to learn you?ve been developing a same-y mobile game with a Diablo skin, then be snide when it?s clear you fucked up. That be like Valve at ?ValvCon? hinting a Half-Life announcement, unveiling a Half-Life themed Candy Crush knock-off, then saying ?well fuck you ungrateful bastards; who doesn?t like Candy Crush??

I'd wager that they it was going to be received like Fallout Shelter. That series made a similar transition and Shelter dramatically helped the franchise and hype. Blizzards misstep was ONLY providing a mobile game that could be played while you're waiting for the majot game to be finished. Id point to ES:Blades which is somewhat well recieved, filled in how the white gold concordant happen and why the Thalmer couldn't press the advantage. But it wasnt connected to a future game that we were waiting for (we know TES6 is happening but... probably not for years.)

Also, Blizzard did handle the backlash terribly

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here