Talk:Mass Effect 3

Controversy Section

Can we change the beginning of the controversy section from "endings have" to "ending has?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.215.8 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the page is locked, I'm just leaving a suggestion here; it really should either be better written or deleted. It really comes off as a lot of hearsay as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.39.34 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be deleted. It's 99% opinion and sources nothing.--68.1.111.29 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah just unsourced weasel word loaded opinion. Glad it is gone. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There has been quite a bit of backlash against the "Day One DLC," which actually prompted BioWare and EA to release statements. There was also a lot of discussion about this topic in the gaming community in general. I'm curious as to why there is nothing at all mentioned in the article. There have been quite a few calls for boycott from notable members of gaming communities (TotalBiscuit comes to mind). Whether you agree with these people or not isn't the issue, I feel it's worth mentioning even if it's very briefly. Celynn (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What was here was unsourced junk. If you can provide some stuff we can all evaluate it and then perhaps come up with a wording, if it seems notable. We need stuff from reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the controversy section should at least show the level of fan opinion in some way. Perhaps with a link to the poll where 70k votes have been cast? http://social.bioware.com/633606/polls/28989/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.28.82 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Shepard's death

It's not true that Shepard dies in all endings. If he destroys the reapers and has a high enough effective military strength, then he lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.36.184.105 (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, only another 22 seconds to explain Shepard alive. But do you think we shouldn't deserve more than 22 seconds? and this 22 seconds and the different ending have about 5% different only. Here is Jeremy say that is not Shepard is Easter Egg.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H_A7SeawU4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.93.58 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Indoctrination Theory

This section needs a point about the popular Indoctrination Theory - as explained here on IGN http://www.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Indoctrination_Theory User:RussianSpy27 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NN, sorry. If more sources mention this, then yes. --Soetermans. T / C 06:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic rants

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A bunch of so-called internet trolls decided to give a game a bad grade on metacritic, I'm guessing because of the day one dlc... Therefore, I think that when the "Ratings" section is written, only official, gamer magazine ratings should be written there, because there can't be a normal user rating because of the aforementioned trolls.

--94.253.201.207 (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ratings in reception sections always use the MC critics' average, not the user average. Regards SoWhy 09:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well for the record did you actually read the User reviews. Unlike MW3 which was essentially zeros because we like BF3, these were well thought out. Including the awful endings, the fact that choices from the previous games affected nothing (except who is still alive), the pandering to homosexuals, and the poor writing. Not arguing for or against inclunsion, just saying actually read the reviews, because they are well thought out and bring up very good points. Superbowlbound (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I DID read the negative rewiews. SOME of them had sensible things to say - mostly about the day one DLC and the (potential, if you really work at developing the character relationship) homosexual scene. Some actually were valid opinions/criticism. Not everyone is going to love ANY plot - and the level of graphics have been seen before. MANY of them were obvious vitiolic filler to prop up a negative rating post. And it was quite clear that clots of self-reinforcing negative review bombers had up rated each others' posts; seriosly, when I looked large numbers of negative reviews were found helpful by the same number of people (really, EXACTLY 17 people each time?!).

In the end, it won't matter. Either the game will sell well past the initial fan push, and show good market performance (continuing sales, players willing to continue the game with DLC, etc.) - or it won't.

Purile whiners rate bombing metacritic won't matter a whit. - 173.230.187.183 (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I haven't read them because I don't want to spoil the game for myself. However, I don't hate homosexuals and believe everyone should be able to enjoy the game regardless of their sexual orientation. I do hope that the game isn't as bad as people say it is, because I don't think it would get such good ratings from Xbox magazines, etc., and because I liked Mass Effect 2. --94.253.201.207 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is on 500 hundred negatives and counting, just not "some trolls". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.155.183 (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The volume doesn't mean anything. Are we expect to reference something as credible just because of 500 rants brought on by internet mentality. Heck, 500 is small compared to other instances of ranting and/or trolling online. Even if there are legitimate points, since there is inherent bias that clogs up the score so much and the fact that many user scores were made on day of release meaning it's highly unlikely anyone has either actually played it or close to playing a good chunk of it at the the time, how can anyone call that credible and worthy of reference as a genuine reflection of reception? Metacritic doesn't represent gamers on the whole and has had habits of this mob mentality in the past. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Whatever you personally think about the merit of those user reviews, they are not reliable sources and thus have no place in this article. The discussion here seems to be more about whether they are valid or not - which belongs to a forum, not this talk page. Regards SoWhy 19:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DRM

Could somebody put up some info about the DRM used in this game? My purchase decision depends on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.83.1.251 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It uses EA's Origin service as DRM. Says so in the "Release" section of the article. -Rycr (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic ratings are up.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3 Perhaps sum1 with the authority could add it to the article, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.180.171 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Arrival DLC

Some information should be given about the Arrival DLC, everybody did not buy & play it, that DLC is leads to the beggining of Mass Effect 3, we should atleast add that what kind of a crime Shepard committed that he was being held for Trail on Earth at the start of Mass Effect 3. Some of this information was on the article Mass Effect 2 but it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.201.160 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User Reception

The Metacritic user rating was quite bad for ME3, maybe someone could add this to the reception section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoopidCity (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This topic has already come up and as a general issue with game receptions has been encouraged to discussed elsewhere. Although many feel that they aren't a reliable reflection given the heavy bias. Stabby Joe (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so what you would consider NO BIAS is from a company that gets ad revenue from the product they're reviewing right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.37.103 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We would need an RS, not some random opinions. Metacritic user ratings are not unlike forum postings, which are not sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

How's this for a source that the ending and game was panned? http://www.ign.com/blogs/goldenadamas/2012/03/09/how-mass-effect-3-free-additional-dlc-endings-can-redeem-the-trilogy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperBlade (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A user blog post and the only one made? What makes this user unique? How does that make it a credible source? Further more what does it have to do with Metacritic users even if it was credible? Stabby Joe (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a big backlash to this game due to the day 1 DLC, which was viewed as a major ripoff. Additionally, Forbes theorized that the presence of gay sex in the game played a role in the backlash. Whatever the motivation for the Metacritic score was, it certainly isn't reliably indicative of actual audience reception of the game. For example, the IMDb user score is at 10/10. Swarm ^X 19:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we add the information about, that some mass effect fans theorize that Shepard is indoctrinated, and that the only way to break free is to choose the "Destroy Ending". (Grim Sparky (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

I don't think this can be added without a strong source, otherwise it is just fan speculation.Caidh (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think user reviews should only be mentioned if they're covered in reliable sources. While there are issues with professional critics of any calibre ("this gets my lowest rating ever: seven thumbs up."), they nevertheless are experts. User reviews also don't touch on aspects of the game, as evidenced by the hundreds of people who hated Modern Warfare 3 so much they evidently spent $200 to give it a negative review on three different platforms. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Should there be mention here of the building negative reaction to EA supplying only some pre-order bonus codes for the AT-12 Raider Shotgun DLC to select customers despite repeated assurances from Chris Priestly and advertising that it would be provided to all pre-orders placed on their Origin service? Some users are even complaining that they did not receive their channel-wide offer of the M-55 Argus Assault Rifle. Many threads on BioWare Social Network were created discussing the shortage, and the YouTube clip advertising the shotgun has recently been hit with a few (<200) vocal dislikes. There is also a rumor which seems to be floating around that the DLC was offered as PC only, based mostly on EA Customer Service representatives saying they could not find the codes for consoles. Despite this, the complaint of unsent items has been expressed by PC and console users alike. I've been looking but haven't found an official source for either side of this issue yet. 70.75.89.120 (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional speculation (Yes, I admit it's speculation on my part exclusively), this may have contributed to the negative Metacritic user rating in addition to the romance options. 70.75.89.120 (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS WP:OR and WP:RECENTISM Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. 'Generally unfavourable user reception (3.5)' should be added. Who are we to dismiss 1,700 voices? Let's stay objective please. The number is relevant. Unless wikipedia wants to support its own positive opinion of this game, user reception should be reported if we use Metacritic.

And secondly point brought up against Metacritic user evaluation can also be applied to magazine reviews. Who are we to say users go with the flow but magazines don't? Let's be real and add the information.89.166.239.7 (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

These are self published sources, equivalent to forum posts. Please read WP:RS. As well, see the section called 'Metacritic Rants' on this page, this has been discussed already. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

'Metacritic rants' is a PR term, the entire paragraph here is invalid and biased from the outset. We shouldn't use it. Say it as it is instead: we will not use 1,700 user reviews to taint fanboys' love of the game (I liked the game as well but negative opinions should be allowed a mention as well since praise of the game was not unanimous at all. No one is asking to delete magazine opinion or favour the 'rants'.89.166.239.7 (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, we need WP:RS sources, it is that simple. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of the user score in judging the quality of the game itself is not what should concern us. An encyclopedia should report the major facts relevant to the topic of the article. The metacritic score is a major fact relevant to the topic. A reader should judge for themselves whether the metacritic score judges the quality of the game reliably. The source of the fact itself (metacritic score), however, is reliable. It is our job to be objective and neutral and to keep facts about the game in one place. Some of us may disagree that the game is bad, others may agree. But we should report the average user reception nontheless. This is not the same as reporting individual opinions (and even this is OK in the case when the individual is high profile). This article is not an advertisement for the game. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USERGENERATED#Statements_of_opinion . It is written clearly that statements of opinion are allowed as long as they are not self-published, written by bloggers or so. I.e., metacritic user scores qualify. So I am putting the information back. Please do not remove it unilaterally. Meznaric (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

These are opinions and self published, I fail to see how this qualifies as an RS. They are no better than forum posts. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, this is an aggregate opinion collected by metacritic. It is more akin to a survey than a self-published opinion. If you look into articles about political parties you will see lots of survey data all around. Nobody is arguing we should remove those. Meznaric (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Surveys have random samples and attempt to be representative. Metacritic user reviews are those of people who chose to post such reviews. Again, read here, all over this talk page, these are not reliable sources. You have been reverted by two editors and per WP:BRD I am going to revert them again. THere is no consensus to add the material, and it violates policy. You might go see what people say at the video game wikiproject. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck is correct, I believe. The fact that users can add their own scores makes it biased, and not particularly representative of all users. Look here, 941 users went online, went to Metacritic to post their review. How many units did ME3 sell on PS3 alone? 1,5 million? That doesn't say anything really. --Soetermans. T / C 21:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, a lot of users gave the game a zero. A zero out of ten. Are you kidding me? You might be disappointed with the game, you might even dislike it or even hate it, but a zero?! Wasn't there a single thing those users found positive in the entire experience? Not the graphics, the sounds or the cinematics? No, apparently. You see, we really can't have these reviews here. --Soetermans. T / C 21:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In a general sense I see no reason to include them; as has been said, they are are user-generated content, not unlike forum posts. However, there may be good reason to include them within the "controversy" section, as long as we can find a source that references them. A LOT of players seem to have been pissed off by the ending, so, as often happens (although usually in relation to DRM), they have posted 0/10 reviews on Metacritic, 1-star reviews on Amazon etc. The review score in itself is not encyclopædia worthy, but may well be relevant in relation to the game's controversy. Think of it as a manifestation of the player backlash. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy with this compromise. Meznaric (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as it is mentioned in a RS and we are not doing OR or giving undue weight. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, you are aware that metacritic is sourced in all of the other Mass Effect wikipedia articles right? Actually, for that matter, Metacritic has a history of being sourced and passing RS claims in addition to being cited as an RS in other claims. Here's some of that: ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7}. Just because every source doesn't agree doesn't make a generally accepted one less valid. --Karek^words?! 14:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to user submitted reviews on metacritic (et al) not the summaries of professional reviewers' comments. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the fact that another article does something is not a valid reason to do it here. The nature of Wikipedia means that any/all articles may contain things that are against policy - the fact that something is there only proves that no-one has deleted it (yet), not that it is acceptable. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 18:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet it does mean it is a reliable source when it's been vetted to be so frequently, which was the whole point. In this case a metacritic bombing or ratings disconnect between user and professional is a relevant subject as well since the User Reception portion is about, in part, this specific conflicting reception. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to cite the fact that a number of user reviews were removed from that amount but it isn't realistic to the content the section is trying to represent to completely deny it's existence.

Dbrodbeck, not representing the user reviews in an article about the user reception that contains the subject of the disconnect between user and professional reviewer reception is simply absurd. Metacritic professional reviews are cited in Reception section yes the section specifically about said conflict isn't allowed to have the equivalent aggregate score from the same aggregator even though that itself has reliably source-able articles about it representing exactly this issue? Like it or not the metacritic user reviews are a relevant portion and representation of the professional vs user reception controversy.¹²³⁴⁵⁶--Karek^words?! 00:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me just set a few things straight here Karek. Your post prior to this one seemed to be saying that use of Metacritic user reviews was justified because:

• other Mass Effect articles do so
• Metacritic has in the past been considered a reliable source for professional reviews (that is what all the linked discussions talk about).

Neither of these arguments hold up. The fact that it has been shown to be a reliable source for professional reviews does not mean it is exempt from Wikipedia's policy on user-generated content (WP:USERGENERATED). The reviews themselves are clearly not in compliance with Wikipedia's user-generated content policy, and thus cannot be included on their own grounds. For comparison, The Guardian's^† website is considered a reliable source for news stories, but the user comments cannot be used since they are user-generated. Also, what exactly are you saying it is a reliable source for? Metacritic in general is a reliable source for aggregate scores and content summaries; the actual reviews are reliable as professional opinions in their own right regardless of whether they are on Metacritic or not. The user reviews however are not. If all you are saying is that they are a reliable source for the average score of those who have posted reviews there, then yes, they are; however, they are not a reliable source for player perception since the user-generated nature of the content means they are subject to Selection bias (i.e. those that are angry are far more likely to write a review in order to air their grievances ("I'm pissed off BioWare/EA, listen to me!") than those who are apathetic or those who enjoyed).

^† I only chose that particular paper because I know it has user comments.

However, no-one seems to be arguing against mentioning them in relation to the backlash, as long as they are mentioned in a reliable secondary source (Metacritic being the primary source), many of which you have just linked to. In that case, actually citing Metacritic may be fine, but only to source the current specific score (not to justify the content's inclusion in its own right). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 15:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Re the last part of your post. Direct inking of the Metacritic user scores would only be OK in a certain context. eg. "On xx April 2012, magazine/website X reported that Mass Effect 3 had a Metcritic score of N stating that this is the lowest user score for a game ever (or some other key point raised by the mag/website). As of (current date) the user score is N "

Pay attention to the middle bit, "this is the lowest score...etc" that is the qualifier for having the current Metacritic user score. Without that it will look like the magazine is being mentioned as a way of showhorning the User score in to the article. - X201 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

more detail in the plot section

we need more detail in the plot section is that ok with everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit War from Fanbase

I just wanted to note that there seems to be an "Edit War" movement by some angered fans.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9772095

Whether you agree or disagree with their opinions, I don't think we should let people with agendas write a NPOV article, and I think we need to take some care here. I dislike WP being used to "mount opinion campaigns" as it ruins objectivity. I'm not sure this is a relevant controversy right now, so we need to take a close look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRTroy (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as the information is from a reliable source(s), verifiable, and notable, then this is a simple content dispute, regardless of your agenda or theirs. It is not our job to determine what is "relevant", but whether or not it satisfies undue weight: "...in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Since WP:RS and WP:V seem to be fulfilled, I believe you are questioning the weight, correct? DrNegative (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. For instance, I left the links in, but the weight is not verifiable and I was just pointing out to be prepared for "edit wars". Plus I figured people should comment here on why this is worth commenting on. JRT (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well in my opinion, it has seen enough coverage in the media from respectable secondary sources to grant it a sentence or two noting it, in a neutral fashion without the peacock terms. As it stands now, it looks very vague and does not explain or at least briefly summarize to the reader why the fans feel that way (based on the sources). DrNegative (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/10/the-problem-with-biowares-mass-effect-3-day-one-dlc-from-ashes/ http://social.bioware.com/633606/polls/28989/ http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9512916/729 comment added by Sid (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Forum postings prove nothing, the other article is an opinion piece. What is everyone's rush on this anyway, can we not freaking wait a week, or a month, to find out if any of this stuff is even remotely notable? Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The DLC controversy has seen reasonable coverage in reliable sources and I think it should probably be mentioned, in a minor way. But, as you say, there's no rush whatsoever. Swarm ^X 18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Typically I am all for waiting but something should be said sooner rather than later regarding the fan backlash because it has already been mentioned on multiple prominent gaming media sites and the article in its current state displays universal praise when there is in fact a dichotomy of opinion between critics and fans. While I know fan reception of videogames isn't typically mentioned on wikipedia articles, I believe the attention it has garnered from the mainstream gaming media warrants its inclusion in order to maintain neutrality. The longer this waits, the longer the article is one sided towards the mainstream critics' reception instead of universal reception. http://www.gamespot.com/features/why-do-you-hate-mass-effect-3-6365175/ http://egamer.co.za/2012/03/mass-effect-3-suffers-massive-user-backlash/ http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/10810.html http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/03/06/mass-effect-3-backlash-why-gamers-should-be-ashamed/ Redredryder (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That argument, specifically "While I know fan reception of videogames isn't typically mentioned on wikipedia articles, I believe the attention it has garnered from the mainstream gaming media warrants its inclusion in order to maintain neutrality." has been used plenty of times. I've never seen it be successful. Muskeato 11:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Redredryder, you are 'typically all for waiting' but not in this case. So you are typically for this since you registered a simple purpose account on March 11, 2012? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with how it is currently written, though I don't know if that's just part of an edit war. You can't call it balanced and write about universal praise when multiple sources clearly indicate a backlash within the game's community. Redredryder (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note that there are a number of new editors here, that jumped right to the talk page. If you have come here from the above off site canvassing please read WP:TALK WP:RS WP:CAN WP:NOT and read through discussions on number of pages to get an idea of how things work around here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest, that since the ending controversy has progressed beyond the gaming media, and is now playing out in the mass media (the BBC for one) that this section warrants expansion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17458208 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.28.82 (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 March 2012

I think there should be an addition to the reception section involving Bioware's handling of game content. Specifically one of the characters in the game Tali'Zorah. One of the bigger reveals of this final game was supposed to be the unmasking of Tali'zorah, a character famous for dawning a helmet and never showing her face. The reveal involved an in game picture showing her with her helmet. The problem was the image used was taken from a stock photo company. This issue has been controversial among fans due to the fact they couldn't even take the time to model an appropriate face model for such a moment. They took two games of build up and decided to end it with a google search and a quick photoshop.

Basically I think there should just be an addition that says the following.

"Fans declared backlash upon discovering stock photos were used in the unmasking of character Tali'Zorah"

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116202-BioWare-Uses-Stock-Photo-for-Tali-in-Mass-Effect-3

Bigbuddhabelly (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done How is this notable? Please read WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 2 on 11 March 2012

Also this : http://crystalprisonzone.blogspot.in/2012/03/bioware-day-one-dlc-developed.html?m=1,http://geek.pikimal.com/2012/03/08/mass-effect-3s-from-ashes-is-disc-locked/ DLC character is already on the disc and buyers have payed double

 Not done

Some guy's blog is not a WP:RS. Find a reliable source, then we can discuss if it merits inclusion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You see these things will never be out officially on reliable sources. I know the chances of my request happening are next to nil so its up to u to take it or leave it. I got 2 more source http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Mass-Effect-3-Day-One-DLC-Was-Disc-All-40298.html http://www.bagogames.com/mass-effect-3-downloadable-content-disk/

http://www.destructoid.com/did-bioware-lie-about-mass-effect-3-s-day-one-dlc--223448.phtml

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/11/new-video-shows-mass-effect-3-day-one-dlc-already-on-disc/ is the best proof The DLC was already on the standard disc and people have paid double to download 600 mb of data which the company claimed was the DLC. The article has proof that the DLC is already on the standard edition and people have been tricked into buying the digital/collectors edition.

What more proof do you want ? Aren't forbes and game magazines valid enough ? I, as a part of the consumer base, want to highlight certain controversies that aren't good and yet I get the feeling that I'm being tossed around.Is it really your intention to edit the article or am I just being asked to foolishly run errands to collect "reliable" evidence ?

please see below, where it says 'not done' and please never ever change others' talk page comments. , The user 'Sid' has no contributions, if you are 'Sid' please sign in. Finally, read WP:RS and WP:RECENTISM . There is no rush on this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Also i want to post a review link that contains the truth instead of the glowing reviews. http://gamingshogun.com/2012/03/09/mass-effect-3-leaves-me-angry-a-review-pc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 

Sid (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding Sid comment added by Sid (talk)

• Hi there. If you want to make an edit request, please coherently put together/describe the edit that you wish to make so a confirmed user can review it. As it currently stands, it's unclear what specific edit you're requesting. Thanks! Swarm ^X 18:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Like swarm said, please be specific about what you want to add and provide reliable sources. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Answered set to no because the user did as requested but this has been ignored. I am interested in how this will play out.89.166.239.7 (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't get caught up in the Wikidrama. The requester needs to make his request in a coherent manner and provide reliable sources. If he wishes to do that, he should follow proper talk page etiquette and provide the new request below the rest of the discussion. Editing posts on a talk page, even when logged in as the original author, is discouraged since it results in confusion. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy segment in the article

This article definitely needs a section for the various controversies associated with the title at this point, primarily the whole day 1 Prothean DLC affair. Dragon Age II had such a section, the major difference being that while most of the DA2 controversies were disproven or resolved, the opposite is happening here, as it has now turned out that BioWare have blatantly lied to their customers about the DLC being on the disc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRRpGlmtws8 - I know this isn't good enough for an article source, but it shows us editors what's up). I spent a good few weeks undoing the work of trolls and arguing against the controversy section in the DA2 article (because most of them were indeed resolved), but even I will gladly admit that one is needed here. I propose people start saving the various articles about the controversy from reliable gaming media sites and gather them here so we can write up a proper, well-sourced and NPOV controversy segment for the article. --Smoochiekins (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Any so called controversy should be inserted into the article in appropriate sections, rather than having a separate section. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not what was done with Dragon Age II, despite the controversies being much less severe than ME3's. Regardless, we could probably fit a controversy subheader in under Release instead of making a completely seperate section for it. --Smoochiekins (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Smocchiekins is right, other examples include Doom, Grand Theft Auto, Left 4 Dead 2, and Modern Warfare 2 (has it's own page). At some point this article will need its own Controversy section. Redredryder (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The supposed 'severity' of any controversy is too early to tell anyway. I still, for the life of me, do not understand everyone's rush. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand the rush in selectively rehashing glowing reviews and opinions either. Has wikipedia succumbed to EA's influence?89.166.239.7 (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you do not understand WP:RS. Saying that editors are compromised is a very serious thing, without evidence you really ought not to say stuff like that, please see WP:NPA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Chobot/IGN controversy

Under the Reception subsection I believe the first sentence in regards to IGN's review should be removed. The reason being an IGN journalist, Jessica Chobot, modeled and voiced a character for the game. While she did not write IGN's review for the game, her status as an IGN personality and appearance in the game nevertheless compromises the journalistic integrity of the review. Chobot is mentioned in the article but her affiliation is not. In an effort to maintain neutrality, I do not see why the IGN review should be allowed without mention of Chobot as an IGN employee. http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Diana_Allers Redredryder (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how this biases a review as she did not write it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

IGN published an extremely positive review for a game that contains the likeness and voice of one of their personalities (She plays a journalistic character not unlike her role in real life for IGN). Whether or not the score of the review is justified is irrelevant. However, knowing that their review of the game will influence sales on at least some level, IGN has a monetary incentive to give high marks because success of the game will lead to more exposure to Chobot and in turn their own site. The point is Wikipedia is setting a dangerous precedent if IGN's review is considered credible. Particularly suspicious is that it is the very first review mentioned if one reads the Reception subsection. At the very least the conflict of interest should be mentioned. Redredryder (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with original research, and everything to do with assessing the neutrality and reliability of a source. We wouldn't cite an on-air CNN review of a movie that gave a prominent speaking part to an active CNN reporter at all, let alone without stating the connection. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC) (and because it's sure to come up on a page like this, I edit solely as an anon these days; I'm not a sock of anyone, least of all User:Redredryder above. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC))

I think I'm with Dbrodbeck on this. I don't really see the problem myself, and it does in fact come under WP:OR. Muskeato 11:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how this falls under original research and not verifiability. It's a conflict of interest with IGN and Bioware. If the reviewer wrote the same review for a different company I would have no problem with the review. When an employee of IGN works on the game in question and IGN subsequently publishes a review of that game, then IGN as a source becomes conflicted. See WP:QS Redredryder (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you really and truly believe that IGN is no longer a reliable source for video game reviews, take this to the WP:RSN and be sure to let everyone else here know. She did not write the review, and everything you see in a forum posting is not a 'controversy'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

To protect out integrity, we should mention that IGN could be serving their own interests by giving the game a particularly high rating then. The fact that a member of IGN has personal stakes in the game's success is noteworthy. This is an encyclopaedia, not a PR site.89.166.239.7 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Find a reliable source explaining the IGN / ME3 connection, then. Without a proper source we are in no position to add anything as NPOV editors. --Smoochiekins (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Posted to WP:RSN. Link here [1]. Thoughts on response? Redredryder (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

IGN is a popular video game review source. The score of 9.5 is only slightly better than the average Mass Effect 3 reviews. If IGN gave a review a lot higher than the other publishers, then you could leave IGN out of it, or even mention the connection. However it's review of the game contains criticism and gives a lower score than several other review sources. IGN is a big company, it's parent News Corp is even larger. If you delved deep enough you could probably find similar relationships between employees/subsidiaries/families/friends and video games. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm a week or two out for this conversation but do you seriously think 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is a valid argument here for treating IGN as a reliable source? What then about the Colin Moriarty video drama^{1 2}, wouldn't that necessarily bring their position into at least some realistic question in the article and thus make the IGN portion of the controversy appropriate content in this case. In this case IGN's communal reaction to the controversy is actually a relevant part of the controversy. --Karek^words?! 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2012

change the generally positive reviews in reception to critical acclaim. Currently it is the highest rated video game of 2012

Sjay1994 (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. There seem to be enough quoted "criticisms" in the Reception section, such as "fails to stand up as its own game in the same manner as its predecessors" and "...the end of the series is a mixed bag. Satisfying in some ways, nonsensical in others, and ultimately too simple" to make "generally positive" a pretty fair assessment at the moment, imo. Begoon ^talk 05:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, WP:Recentism. A tad redundant to change something based on the notion that a game is the highest rated title of a year when you're only three months into the year. Let the dust settle. --Smoochiekins (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Most definitely  Done. Metacritic reports "universal acclaim" based on 46 all positive reviews. Any reception section should give a balanced sampling of reviews, but if, in its current state, it's giving undue weight to the criticisms, then that's a problem. Swarm ^X 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

While there does seem to be undue weight, since it's also in need on an expansion generally, some of this might hopefully be offset in the near future. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User reviews

While checking out this game's reviews I came across something not totally unexpected; namely that while professional critics overwhelmingly gave ME3 a great review, the user rating has not been so great. Currently the reception section is quite glowing because it is based purely on professional critic sources, so I'm proposing that we use the metacritic user rating as a source of parity. Can we use user ratings from sites like metacritic or are they consider to be equivalent to online surveys? Saedon (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Note:I probably shouldn't call the section "glowing" because there are criticisms. What I meant to express in my previous comment is that we should use the actual numerical rating from metacritic and essentially say that while professional critics have loved the game, the user ratings have been low. Saedon (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As you are new around wikipedia you might not be aware of our sourcing requirements. User reviews are self published and do not qualify as reliable sources. (It has already been discussed above BTW). Read WP:RS for details. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(from vg talk) WP:SPS. I don't think we should cite the user scores, because there is no editorial oversight and general bias, therefore no reliable scoring system. Giving the game "0" or "1" and listing a few subjective issues, while ignoring the majority of content is not reception/review/criticism/journalism. None of the authors are reliable reviewers. Just looking at examples where a user gives half the games 10 and half the other games 0 is in no way proper. And a collective score of these "reviews" isn't either. Besides, negative scores are always the loudest voices and too biased of a sample to draw any conclusions. We only cite the Metacritic and GameRankings scores because they use reliable reviews to accumulate those scores. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User-generate content (including reviews) is not considered a reliable source. If the fact that users rate it differently than professional reviewers is notable (as you seem to imply), then surely a reliable source discusses the phenomenon; that should then be used to source the statement. Salvidrim! 13:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I second what Salvidrim is saying. The only reason that User reviews should be mentioned is if a reliable sources is reporting on them for whatever reason. Like if an IGN editor does an article where he/she writes about how they noticed the User reviews were drastically different or something. Directly referencing fan/user reviews violates WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if these were replies to my comment specifically, but I didn't imply that we should include any of them. I was just elaborating on specifics why they cannot possibly be considered reliable or notable. Third party reliable coverage about this -- sure. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I see where you both are coming from and it does make sense to apply the user-generated content rule to Metacritic as well. In line with the requirements explained, how about this then: 'User feedback on Metacritic has been generally unfavourable and allegations of preferential treatment by means of deleting profane reviews (unlike Modern Warfare 3) have been dismissed by Metacritic'.89.166.239.7 (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/06/metacritic-deleting-mass-effect-3-user-reviews/

Problem is though IF we were to mentioned Metacritic, the question there is whether the feedback was made because of game or just a biased rant on one small aspect? Because many would say the latter BUT we can't source it one way or the other. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think that the existance of negative viewer reviews should be mentioned. Failing to do that is in my opinion taking sides and objective. (talk) 22 March 2012

Need bugs section.

As reported here, here and here, the multiplayer has a huge bug connected with user profile and his progress. There also many another bugs, look at the bioware forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.188.36.16 (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

None of those meet WP:RS. Is there significant coverage in reliable sources that are not self published? Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Character face import Edit request on 15 March 2012

Many players are unable to carry over their custom appearances from the early games, with little response from EA and Bioware, and are unwilling to play singleplayer until the problem is fixed, with many opting to return the game rather than play without the custom face they've played throughout the series. Can someone add the character face import issue to reception? Limited explanation from EA of the problem: https://help.ea.com/article/cannot-import-save-game-for-mass-effect-3-on-x360 News coverage: http://kotaku.com/5890793/oh-dear-mass-effect-3s-character-import-isnt-working-properly There is also a poll up on Bioware forums with nearly 1000 votes of disappointment over the issue: http://social.bioware.com/1317520/polls/29029/

and the main thread is up to more than 160 pages:

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/9661093/163 203.206.176.7 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is enough of an issue to cover. The only source given that is a reliable source is the kotaku article and nothing there mentions people returning their games because of it. I had the problem myself but its a minor bug. Not really worth mentioning in the article.Caidh (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

✗ Not done Yeah, per above: every software has bugs and this can be seen as a smaller one, forums and helpages are either unreliable or primary/secondary sources and the kotaku reference is not enough. As I said: would we report every (fixed) bug in Microsoft Windows; the page would crash every web browser. mabdul 13:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Retake Mass Effect Charity Drive

I think the Retake Mass Effect charity drive would be worth mentioning under Reception. Fans angry about the ending raise over $50k for kids in hospitals. Anyone else think that this is pretty significant?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/15/paragons-of-protest-retake-mass-effect-raises-money-for-kids/

http://retakemasseffect.chipin.com/retake-mass-effect-childs-play Redredryder (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree, the controversy for this far exceeds that of Dragonage 2 which has already set a precedent for including a controversy heading. Bioware have also officially acknowledge the fan outrage through several sources (Twitter, Bioware Forum and interviews with Gaming websites). However I'm not sure if any one of them fit the criteria to be used as a source for Wikipedia. This will be difficult to address because the fan outrage has been mainly through social media and hence the Bioware response has been through social media. Do we ignore this real phenomena on Wikipedia simply because it doesn't meet the prescribed standards of a source? I vote we don't ignore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.80.9 (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact yes, until something gets significant media coverage that is exactly what we do, we ignore it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI there is plenty of media coverage surrounding this. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Is there any opposition to mentioning in the article that fans have raised almost $60K to protest the ending of the game? Redredryder (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The big reason we are slow to edit here is for the following reasons.

• This article is not a news site, nor is it to promote current events with Niche items. This article is going to be around 10 years from now, it should stick to long-term impacts over short-term items. It would be foolish to devote a lot of detail if this will blow over in a few weeks, depending on what ultimately happens.
• This isn't the place to promote campaigns like the Retake Mass Effect 3 campaigns. We're NPOV here, not taking sides.
• With all the various news going around, speaking from my personal opinion, I'd like to take time to review and filter it--it's hard to tell the bloggers from the larger news sites--some of these columns are opinion pieces--and there's so much back and forth on it it's hard to get everything together. I'd rather review over the next few weeks and report after figuring out what opinions matter and what makes sense.

And I will probably add these myself sometime next week--but keep in mind, there is no rush to discuss these--the only rush IMO would be from people trying to use the articles to promote a campaign or POV. We don't have to add breaking news to an article every hour, unless it involves some major world event.

JRT (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If we were to add a controversy section, we should probably discuss exactly what it should cover and try to gather sources for each topic. So far, there's the following;

• IGN's biased connection with the ME3 development [1]
• Day 1 DLC shenanigans (sources needed)
• Possibly the fan reaction to the ending (sources already in article, so perhaps it should stay under reception) and the Retake Mass Effect charity drive (sources above)

Anything I'm missing? --Smoochiekins (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that "controversy" sections are usually frowned upon in Wikipedia, see[[13]]. I think the only place it would be appropriate if it made huge mainstream attention--like Fox News' report about the original games sex scene. Out of the three bullet items you mention, the last one would be appropriate. Day 1 DLC is more or less common for all games, personally that would be more appropriate in a section about DRM or DLC in general, since many games are doing this. As for your first point--I'm sorry, outside of one article, the implication is not verifiable and potentially libelous. You are making a very serious accusation here and unless it can be proven, that does more harm than good. JRT (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The links I mentioned above come primarily from the same professional gaming sites whose reviews we added to this article within an hour of being published. Reviews from professional critics alone do not define how a game is received, yet why was there no wait to write a Reception section, which now has been woefully unbalanced for the past week and a half and has essentially been promoting the game despite numerous criticisms (which have been picked up by the media)? The point of mentioning the charity [14] isn't to promote it, but because it was formed in protest to the controversial ending and has received significant coverage. If we are going to claim we need to wait, then we should wait a week or two from the release date of games before writing ANYTHING about how it was received. We shouldn't rush to write a paragraph an hour after critic reviews are published and assume their views are universal. Redredryder (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Redredryder. Referencing the charity drive and highlighting the particular controversies is not the same as picking a side. It is entirely appropriate that this controversy should be pointed out, with the reader being able to form their own opinions. To my mind the the charity drive in and of itself is very significant and possibly unprecedented in gaming history. I can't see any reason for this not be included even in 10 years. That being said I do think it would be wise to perhaps exercise some patience and approach this impartially without advocating one side or another. However it shouldn't be whitewashed as the controversy has been highlighted in many media sites that are now referenced as sources in this article. 123.2.80.9 (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember, this is not a news site. Let everything die down, and see if this is all still a big deal, and yes if it is then, and it is still getting coverage we should of course add it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"The game's ending has been controversial with some fans." This statement and the fact that this huge controversy is given only two lines is an outright breach of NPV. The polls have shown more than 89% feel the endings were starkly lacking, that's not "some". Also the basis upon which the objections are being raised are serious, some wanting to officially complain that Bioware failed to live up to explicit promise of its statements: "player's decision throughout the game will dictate the outcome". I don't think we have to mention everything like it's a news website, but diluting what is going on with weasel words is hardly informational. WHat they decide to do about it can remain for later, but for now we should be fair and publish references to all the social and media websites that blasted the game's ending so hard. 175.139.2.246 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No it is not against NPV--saying that it is controversial with fans is a simple statement of fact. The polls you are quoting are not scientific or statistically based. And there are no weasel words being used by that statement. I am sorry that some dejected game fans are upset that Wikipedia is not giving into the emotional drama, but sometimes, less is more if the facts are still unclear. Again, the only reason to rush to edit would probably try to actually use the article to influence opinion, which I suspect others are doing right now. I notice most of the people complaining about the article are people who are using IP addresses or very new users and aren't familiar with the Wikipedia methodology. I personally plan on expanding it later this week (and others can do so who are registered), but I'm trying to filter through all the items--most of these articles are just more or less opinion pieces. JRT (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with saying say 'most' fans is that we do not know this. We really cannot know it, short of a survey being done by a polling firm. It seems to me we have to say 'some' fans. Now the problem is, that is a weasel word, but I see no way around it. I figure we need some way to put it where it does not imply that all ME fans find the game to have a bad ending. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to write quotes from half a dozen reviews for this game? It may be just be me, but the current form almost reads more like a newspaper advertisement than an encyclopedia. We already have a chart with numerical values, would it not be better to just summarize notable common praises/criticisms mentioned in the reviews? And of course in time we add sales numbers and any relevant awards this thing might win.Redredryder (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is pretty typical, quoting many reviews. Perhaps, if you don't like that style, you could take it to the video games wikiproject? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, on the other hand, the problem with "some fans" is that it sort of belittles the scope of what's going on. In general I think editors have been a tad too vigorous in preventing trolling, which in turn has skewed the article too much in the other direction. We can report on the various controversies without breaching NPOV, so long as we keep WP:Recentism in mind; in fact, mentioning their existence is much more NPOV than not doing so, as they are just as relevant to the game's release as the reviews are. At the very least I would propose changing "The game's ending has been controversial with some fans" to "The game's ending has been notably controversial within the franchise's fandom" to avoid quantifying the fans altogether. Seems the more neutral thing to do without neither over- nor understanding their numbers. --Smoochiekins (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have simply been trying to follow policy. Yes something like that would work. NPOV remember, means we neutrally report on sources, not that we treat all sides equally. Saying it is 'notably controversial' seems sort of heavy handed. We are getting there though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's true that we have to report neutrally on articles, that's why I have been telling people to find sources for everything they want to contribute instead just adding it in on this page. In theory though, neutrally reporting on sources doesn't mean that we can't include segments about the various controversies so long as we don't give them undue weight in comparison to other aspects of the article, keep recentism in mind and find some good reliable sources. Anyway, notable in a wikipedia sense just means that it's had enough exposure to be be included in the article in the first place. Ie, it's notably controversial which is why someone has written about it and there's those 6-7 sources for it. In that sense though, it might be a tad redundant. It was more of a general suggestion on how we could fix the statement, regardless! Can always be modified --Smoochiekins (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Would a Recentism tag WP:RECENT be fitting for an article like this, particularly if we add the controversy, or are they generally frowned upon? Redredryder (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think that is frowned up upon some. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Now even BBC has acknowledged it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17444719 Perhaps it's time to expand on the ending controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.180.171 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that is a good source I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility issues for the disabled gamer

Should we address the issues relating to visual disabilities and various aspects of the Mass Effect 3 ending? Red and Blue are imperceptible to some with color blindness. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001997/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathonm (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. Posting week old jokes here isn't going to get you anywhere.Redredryder (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we would need coverage in a RS, specifically about this game and colour blindness, before we could add this. Without that it would violate WP:OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

@Redredryder - Excuse me? My concern was legitimate; I wasn't clear on the policy and Dbrodbeck clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by —Johnathonm

New section for the controversy over the game's ending?

The controversy over the game's ending is definitely notable enough for it to be its own section or subsection within the article. Several major news outlets have covered this, and eventually Bioware relented to actually change the ending. Some news sites to support this:

• http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/22/mass-effect-3-makers-to-rewrite-soul-crushing-ending-for-furious-fans/
• http://www.ingame.msnbc.msn.com/technology/ingame/rage-over-mass-effect-3-ending-gets-answered-514404
• http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/21/gamers-held-the-line-mass-effect-3-ending-is-being-addressed/
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/03/21/mass-effect-3-ending-the-indoctrination-theory-is-the-easy-way-out/ JudgeSpear

(talk) 13:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bioware didn't actually relent to change the ending, only to provide "more clarity". (The Fox News and VB articles directly contradict as to whether or not the ending is being changed). Regardless this can wait until Bioware actually does something.Redredryder (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bioware should make an announcement sometime in April, whether or not the ending is changed.

Note that the colors mentioned for your choices are not in the correct order. "Destroy" is red, "Control" is blue, "Synthesize" Is green. CGorky (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Indoctrination Theory

At what point does this theory become a point for inclusion in this article? Forbes has already seemingly legitimised it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/03/21/did-the-real-mass-effect-3-ending-go-over-everyones-heads/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/03/21/mass-effect-3-ending-the-indoctrination-theory-is-the-easy-way-out/

Is it simply a case of wait and see if BioWare adds it to the story officially or can it be added to the reception section along with the rest of the fan controversy?--FLStyle (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If the plot is changed with additional DLC, then that section will be updated appropriately. Until that time we cannot add speculation.Redredryder (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, let's get it right, rather than get it quickly. WP:CRYSTAL. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead Composer?

Maybe it is because I am not familiar with the rules here, but after I view the credit list from the the game's soundtrack, I want to ask why Clint Mansell, who only composed 1.5 piece of music, is the only one showing in the "Composer(s)" section while all other composers that contributed more than Mr. Mansell are hidden. Is it suppose to be like that? Eno ^TALK 19:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source you could link to showing this? WP:RS. Redredryder (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

They are within the file information in the soundtrack disc that comes with the game package. Directly from the product itself. Eno ^TALK 15:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a great point, Mansell was certainly hyped up but he only composed a few key pieces of the soundtrack; the vast majority was done by the four other composers. I've unhidden the other composers and listed them in alphabetical order, just as they appear in the game's credits. Swarm ^X 02:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

CONTROVERSY

The reception section of the article contains some good information about the disgruntled fans of the series in regards to the ending and the charity drive they did. It's been deleted which is stupid. Wikipedia contains relevant information about subjects. The ending of a 3 game plot arc and it's reception among fans is relevant. It isn't on the fringes, it isn't rare or even uncommon. Go to any comment section in a news article about it, any video of the trailers released, and you'll see a lot of disgruntled fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.14.49 (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment sections are not reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement in text

the following is factually inaccurate

"The game will include mini-games and Hammerhead and Mako missions"

No minigames or vechicles section appear in the game so the above text should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. SG²⁰⁹⁰ 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Bias

This entire article reads like it was written by a BioWare/EA PR Representative. There are countless points throughout where it reads as though BioWaremaremthe greatest of all video game developers because of all of the amazing things they supposedly do (that don't even deserve to be in the article). Somebody needs to go over this with a fine toothed comb to get rid of all of the fluff that promotes BioWare. I was under the impression that Wikipedia exists to give an unbiased view of things, but this here is even more biased than articles I've seen with the bias banner, and nobody seems to care here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.177.193 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong biased about the article, it tells us about the things that the developers added in the game compared to its prequels, it tells us about the DLCs, Release, Promotion, Development and the Plot of the game. As far as the Reception section goes then it is very clear the game has received CRITICAL ACCLAIM, the game's metascore for all versions proves that, even the user reception for the game as a whole, apart from the ending, has been generally favorable (apart from metacritic users). I don't think this article has been written by a Representative of EA or Bioware. Calling a game that has been heavy praised by the critics, a critically acclaimed game and saying how much various critics have praised it, is not biased on anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.182.76 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have specific complaints? List them and editors will see what they can do and if the changes are warranted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned the quotes on the wikiprojects discussion page [15]. The response was that they are fine as long as they contribute to the article. Having said that, can we remove or replace the IGN quote? The current quote "absolutely amazing game" tells us nothing that the 9.5 score by IGN doesn't already. Also can we agree to make a brief mention of the Jessica Chobot connection as suggested on the WP:RSN? (That discussion has been deleted but I can repost if you prefer) Redredryder (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason that the quote you refer to needs to be there. As for the IGN controversy, I'm not taking a position one way or another on it - but the discussion has not been deleted. Its still in this talk page in its own section. Nothing appears to have been removed from it.Caidh (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That discussion was on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not this talk page. Redredryder (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I misunderstood. My apologies for the mistake.Caidh (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I had the revert the edit. The Chobot controversy is a complete exaggeration. First, she played a minor character. Second, the game has been very well received by a the video game industry as a whole, not just by IGN. Complaining that its "glowing review" is biased makes no sense. It got a 10 from Eurogamer, Game Informer, and Xbox Official Magazine. The lowest score was from the ever-critical Edge magazine, which gave it an 8. So yeah, Chobot does work for IGN, but we don't have to mention it specifically. Third, except for The Escapist, what other media has mentioned this? Fourth, we're talking about video game entertainment here, not corrupt judges on the take. --Soetermans. T / C 08:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with Soetermans, video game journalism reviews by definition are not the pinnacle of creditability. Fluff reviews by video game websites such as IGN who's primary concern is getting the review out on the net ASAP in order to pander to gamers' confirmation bias, subsequently resulting in page views and ad revenue, are not the be all and end all of neutrality. Surely you don't think the likes of Eurogamer and Game Informer are any different? Reading statements like, "Chobot does work for IGN, but we don't have to mention it specifically," when you're not only using IGN as a source for Reception, but featuring a quote like, "IGN gave Mass Effect 3 a rating of 9.5 and called it an "absolutely amazing game," is ludicrous. What exactly is "absolutely amazing game" adding to this article that wouldn't be there without this quote? Yet Chobot working for IGN apparently would not add to the article? To the last point, neutrality is no less important in one situation than it is any other. Wikipedia does not give license for one set of articles (video games) to be treated any differently from any other.--FLStyle (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't care for adding an IGN quote, the game gets enough praise already, but to specifically mention Chobot's involvement implies something else, by which we would be crossing WP:NPOV. The version by Redredryder was "IGN, whose own Jessica Chobot portrayed a character in-game, gave Mass Effect 3 a rating of 9.5." - reading this would imply that somehow the 9.5 has something to with Chobot being in the game. Leave IGN out of the reception is fine also. --Soetermans. T / C 15:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So you missed the discussion on WP:RSN but the consensus was that IGN is a reliable source and can be used for this review, but that we do need to mention her involvement in the game. If you have a better way to mention it then feel free, but to flat out ignore it would be a much worse violation of WP:NPOV. Redredryder (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss it, but I wouldn't consider a discussion of three Wikipedians consensus. Besides, the way you mentioned Chobot's involvement still suggests that somehow IGN was being too positive in its review. But we don't have to state that IGN gave it a 9.5, which is already mentioned in the reception infobox. I removed IGN and expanded on Chobot, in that way the reader wouldn't think that IGN might've been unfair (which, as far as we know, might be or might not be true). I hope this is alright, otherwise I would consider opening another discussion. --Soetermans. T / C 17:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Reception sections should mention the awful fan response

The User Score on Metacritic is currently 4.9 - that should be mentioned. I don't think it's sensible to rely on the professional critics to gauge the response to games, especially to the ones released by megacorps. The gaming press and the giant publishers have a very close relationship. Websites like IGN and Gamespot rely on the big publisher's advertiser bucks for most of their funds, and the few print mags rely on them to stay competitive. They aren't impartial. I'm not saying that the articles shouldn't mention them, but now that sites like Metacritic allow us to gauge the reactions of people who don't rely on EA to pay the rent, there's no excuse for ignoring them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.102.29 (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You do see the Controversy section below its reception right? --Soetermans. T / C 19:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and please see the discussion in a number of places here already. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The controversy section is about the lousy ending. I want the user's reception in the Reception section to balance the critics. 90.196.102.29 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read this talk page, it is explained, those are not reliable sources. They are self published. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The user reception on other sites like gamespot and imdb has been much more positive, perhaps we should mention them as well, why should we only mention metacritic? You see none of the user reviews on metacritic or any other gaming site whatsoever, don't qualify as a reliable source. However the score on IMDB has been mentioned in the reception section of many movie articles on this site, but not for any games by my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.229.215 (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The user reviews of Metacritic aren't mentioned in the article actually. Besides, that would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because other articles are like this or that doesn't mean this one should be as well. I suggest if you run into one of those articles that mention the GameSpot or IMDb user review, please, take it out, it has no place on Wikipedia. --Soetermans. T / C 19:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with citing aggregate reviews from IMDb or Metacritic. Citing them on an individual basis may be more problematic, but I'm referring to the aggregate here. Why wouldn't this be allowed? — SMAP (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Aggregate's of professional reviewers are fine, of others no, they are self published then and not RSs. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck that is ridiculous and you know it. "Professional" reviews give this game an astounding 90/100 across the board. Individual reviewers in aggregate (on amazon.com) give this game a failing grade of 50/100. Ask yourself this question: Which is more reliable? The one written by gaming magazines who are paid by advertisements from the game companies or the actual players of the game. Wikipedia is full of itself if it doesn't think aggregate user reviews are worthwhile! SMAP (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is policy. If you find it ridiculous, that is another matter. Perhaps we should cite every blog post and forum post and twitter post and Facebook status about the game. Self publish sources are not reliable. Please read WP:RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that policy can you please show it to me? I suppose I should read it. But please spare me the hyperbole, I was not asking to cite every blog post and honestly I think that would be a bad idea. If you could show me an ***aggregate*** review by a particular community that is something that I feel should absolutely be included, especially after giving consideration to the useless paid reviews from media outlets. I can't believe I'm even arguing for this. — SMAP (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not hyperbole. You're bringing up what has been discussed to death here. Sources which let anyone submit a review/score are 100% not reliable sources with regards to WP:RS. Look up the (probably dozens by now) discussions regarding this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games. Caidh (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that the policy your friend was referring to? You clearly do not understand what hyperbole is or you completely misread what I wrote. Or both. This place is ridiculous. — SMAP (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Starcraft reference?

When the crucible AI says that creators of organic beings are doomed to be killed by their own creations, it could be a reference Starcraft, as the Xel'Naga (creators of a organic race, Zerg) were killed and made extinct from their own creations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.210.111 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please put new discussions on the bottom of the page. Concerning your question, I don't know. But unless it has an outside source, it has no place on Wikipedia. --Soetermans. T / C 21:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You're reading into this too much. The Citadel AI was clearly referring to synthetics in that conversation, and the plot of StarCraft II also seems to indicate that the Xel'Naga aren't extinct anyway. --Wordwyrm (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2012

The writing of the DLC section is abominable; it's not laid out well, and the sentence structure makes no sense in some places. It should be incredibly simple to tidy it up a bit without needing to change any of the sources. --Wordwyrm (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)