101103 réponses à ce sujet

[Phoenix NL]

TekFanX wrote...

I want to see those ships, that's what I meant.
The problem I wanted to address is: They only put ships in they already had designs for since ME1(plus the Normandy SR-2).
And though there are two variants for those fleets, the third with the achievement of bringing quarians and geth together is missing.

I might have missed the first part of this but I had the quarian and geth fleets in my ending? They didn't do much more than check in but they were there.

Personally though, because I love the Normandy, I wanted to see it have its moment like it did in the previous 2 games. Shepard couldn't have accomplished everything she did without Joker and the Normandy so give them some love and screen time during the final battle! (and no NOT running away)

[Phoenix NL]

PhoenixDove1 wrote...

naes1984 wrote...

Ampmaster wrote...

From the New Yorker article:

"Real art sticks to it's guns"

Which is why Da Vinci would have repainted the Mona Lisa if his patron damn well told him to right?

Why does anyone care what the New Yorker says? It is the ultimate pretentious magazine for the type of folks who go to wine tastings and drive hybrids. What do they know about videogames? They don't even know anything  about movies (or "film" as they call it).

I just have to say, this is the first time in my life, and I'm 30, that a video game has ever been called art.  What's up with that?  Was this argument used when FO3 got it's ending, or any of the other games where fan/consumer outcry got a change?    If not why now and if so, I don't think those other games were worse off otherwise we'd probably hear about it as part of the art argument right?

I'm in the same boat as you. In my whole life I've never heard that argument either. I've heard that certain games could be considered works of art..... right before they pick holes and point out what could have been done better.

[Iucounou]

A few thoughts on the "art" debate.

Firstly, I wasn't under the impression I was buying a piece of art. I'm pretty sure it doesn't mention art anywhere on the game box and I'm equally sure no one at Bioware mentioned the word art in the pre-release hype.

Secondly, in the unlikely event I ever do buy a piece of art, I'm damn sure I'd get to see it, in its entirety, before I parted with my money. I wouldn't, for example, go to a gallery to buy a painting and purchase one sight unseen.

Thirdly, whenever someone uses the word art to describe something, as in "It's very artistic!" I usually take that to mean one thing - that it appeals to a limited number of individuals because, let's face it, art is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you make something "artistic", typically only a minority will find it attractive, because we all have varied tastes.

Fourthly, a mass-produced product, designed by committee, to appeal to a broad range of people, advertised and publicized to death in order to generate as many sales as possible, is not art.

For something to be art, it must show individual and unique characteristics and flair, be primarily the work of one individual and not be produced solely for commercial gain.

Whilst we all love ME, it's storylines and plot can never be said to be anything other than derivative of countless other works, sci-fi and otherwise.

The actual art assets included in the game - the images and such - might be construed as art. But, as we've seen with Tali's face and the Starchild "Winter on Mars" background, a lot of that is stock imagery repurposed. I imagine any number of the visual assets in the game are simply copied over from the previous games and perhaps given a coat of paint, as it were.

As for artistic integrity....well, see the above paragraph. That's like saying that someone who makes a newspaper collage has artistic integrity.

Ignore the "it's art" defence. It has about as much weight behind it as "The Chewbacca Defence!"

[Bionic Weapon]

VonVerrikan wrote...

I'm getting tired of the whole "It's art" debate.

It's not art. If it is? It's a commission. And if it's a commission then you do it the way we want it. I bought your art because you told me it was going to be something Mass Effect, and instead you drew me a picture of two hands giving me the middle finger. No. Draw it again and right this time >:l

First off good morning! 

All I want is for someone who uses the its art explanation ( without actually explaing anything) to explain to me:
-what was amazing about the ending and why/ how it made sense to them.
-why characters we're doing out of character things and they were ok with it.
- how their choices in the end mattered.
 And so on.

If someone can do that I'd greatly appreciate it. It's getting really bad that no one is willing to actually defend the ending with reasons other than" its art" or "you just don't/aren't smart enough to understand"

[mulder1199]

PhoenixDove1 wrote...

naes1984 wrote...

I just have to say, this is the first time in my life, and I'm 30, that a video game has ever been called art.  What's up with that?  Was this argument used when FO3 got it's ending, or any of the other games where fan/consumer outcry got a change?    If not why now and if so, I don't think those other games were worse off otherwise we'd probably hear about it as part of the art argument right?

eh, that argument is a cop-out....it's why on a DVD you get alt endings and directors cuts....it's why AC Doyle brought sherlock holmes back to life, it's why BIOWARE SAID (2 months ago) WE ARE FIXING 'DECEPTION'

it's a bunch of pooo....!

[MetalCargo999]

PhoenixDove1 wrote...

naes1984 wrote...

Ampmaster wrote...

From the New Yorker article:

"Real art sticks to it's guns"

Which is why Da Vinci would have repainted the Mona Lisa if his patron damn well told him to right?

Why does anyone care what the New Yorker says? It is the ultimate pretentious magazine for the type of folks who go to wine tastings and drive hybrids. What do they know about videogames? They don't even know anything  about movies (or "film" as they call it).

I just have to say, this is the first time in my life, and I'm 30, that a video game has ever been called art.  What's up with that?  Was this argument used when FO3 got it's ending, or any of the other games where fan/consumer outcry got a change?    If not why now and if so, I don't think those other games were worse off otherwise we'd probably hear about it as part of the art argument right?

Honestly? I don't see how videogames can not be considered art.  The real question is whether or not it is good art, and I think the Mass Effect franchise at least proved that videogames can be considered good art.  Minus the ending, of course. 

[chujwamdotego]

mulder1199 wrote...

no, we agree, just saying the same thing different.....if they had lived up to their promises it would be a non issue....

i was speaking in regards (as to your original sentiment) as to what they are doing now...

Right. Sorry if I misuderstood

[mulder1199]

[quote]Bionic Weapon wrote...

[quote]VonVerrikan wrote...



First off good morning! 

All I want is for someone who uses the its art explanation ( without actually explaing anything) to explain to me:
-what was amazing about the ending and why/ how it made sense to them.
-why characters we're doing out of character things and they were ok with it.
- how their choices in the end mattered.
 And so on.

If someone can do that I'd greatly appreciate it. It's getting really bad that no one is willing to actually defend the ending with reasons other than" its art" or "you just don't/aren't smart enough to understand"


[/quote]

that's the thing bionic, the 'pundits' and 'experts' are referring to the ending only. and the entire work, they dont' (or haven't) give a crap about all the issues at the end. they have heard that it's unsatisying and are only arguing for a certain part

apparently Mass Effect :deception, isn't art....

[ChuckieJ]

Commissioned art is payed for before production begins. We merely paid a few months in advance (if at all in advance) of the release of a 3 year project. Therefore, not commissioned. EA commissioned Bioware to make the game and I imagine they are pretty happy with both the sales numbers and the controversy. It's likely the number of people buying the game to see what all the excitement is about outnumbers the people returning the game.

Wait two more weeks and we'll all find out what is going on.

[TheSimbul]

"This whole thing is sort of pointless, though. If BioWare does a new ending DLC it won’t be the first time. It won’t set any precedent. Bethesda (among others) have released alt-ending DLCs in the past, including the now-famous Broken Steel DLC for Fallout 3."

Erik Kain is my new Hero. IGN, you hired the wrong people...

[MetalCargo999]

ChuckieJ wrote...

Commissioned art is payed for before production begins. We merely paid a few months in advance (if at all in advance) of the release of a 3 year project. Therefore, not commissioned. EA commissioned Bioware to make the game and I imagine they are pretty happy with both the sales numbers and the controversy. It's likely the number of people buying the game to see what all the excitement is about outnumbers the people returning the game.

Wait two more weeks and we'll all find out what is going on.

Granted.  Most of us can probably be called digruntled customers more than anything else.

[mulder1199]

chujwamdotego wrote...

mulder1199 wrote...

no, we agree, just saying the same thing different.....if they had lived up to their promises it would be a non issue....

i was speaking in regards (as to your original sentiment) as to what they are doing now...

Right. Sorry if I misuderstood

np, marashep and i had the same issue last week....if we were sitting in the same room talking about this, we would have easily understood each other....too tough to get the sentiment we are expressing (at times through text)....

regardless, their words (but more our outcry and getting them to respond) has filled me with enough hope to start another play through

note-i'll be on vacation from this thursday until the next, next sunday; so i'll def not be able to make any headway until after the PAX info comes out...

[Phoenix NL]

Totally different thought - During the Eden Prime mission where you get Javik I brought along Kaidan, my VS, because I thought there'd be a bit of interesting dialogue. Now there was a brief conversation on the shuttle but am I alone in thinking that there should have been a moment included in that where they stop to remember how it all got started? I mean, Jenkins dies there and that's where you meet Ashley and get hit by the Prothean beacon. I know it's a minor point but I would have thought that they would have done a bit more than just a short couple of sentences on the shuttle?

[Cybermortis]

Re; Quarian Fleet;

It is explained in the course of the games that the bulk of the Quarian fleet consists of second hand ships - some bought others salvaged. While all of their ships carry some guns for defence, they have only a small number of true warships and those they do possess are rather old or presumably were abandoned after suffering heavy damage. They certainly lack any ship-building capability of their own with which to build and dedicated warships of their own.

Re; Lack of Frigates in the fight scenes;

It is explained in the codex of the first two games, if not the third, that space combat is fought at three ranges. The dreadnoughts stay at long range, where their powerful guns can dominate the battle. Cruisers hold the middle ground, being capable of assisting the dreadnoughts in long range fire support or getting in close if needed. The frigates are the close in fighters, using their speed and mobility to move into short range combat with opposing fleets and engage enemy ships with lasers - which barrier shields don't protect against.

The reason we tend to see the cruisers during the fight scenes is simply because the bigger ships are further back, and the smaller ships are, presumably, on the flanks out of the way of the main gunnery exchanges at the start, and probably trying to hit the Reapers from behind in the later stages - it is also reasonable to assume that the frigates work in groups more than the larger cruisers do.

We don't really get to see much of the tactics used in the ME universe in space combat, only the initial stages in ME1&3. ME1's later scenes of the Alliance ships are not representative of tactics, since in order to target Sovereign the ships had to get inside the arms of the Citadel which eliminated the possibility of manoeuvring into the ships ideal combat ranges. The cramped space would probably have prevented the dreadnoughts of that fleet from directly engaging, and the frigates would not have been able to survive in such a close quarters fight where they could not use their speed and agility to stay out of trouble - Normandy being the exception.

So the space battles in ME are, in fact, consistent with the lore set down in the series.

Man I really think about this stuff far too much...which is rather surprising considering that I rarely bother looking at codex entries....

[RussianOrc]

This "art" argument is ridiculous, i've paid for a game that was since the begining about overcoming impossible odds and triumphing.I mean, come on, the logo of the game is "take back earth" and now in the very end of the trillogy they're betraying everything they've created.
There is no art in betraying your roots.

[CitizenSnips28]

VonVerrikan wrote...

I'm getting tired of the whole "It's art" debate.

It's not art. If it is? It's a commission. And if it's a commission then you do it the way we want it. I bought your art because you told me it was going to be something Mass Effect, and instead you drew me a picture of two hands giving me the middle finger. No. Draw it again and right this time >:l

While I would say there is art involved, a large budget game is a product first. It literally could not exist without customers. Had ME1 bombed in sales, there would be no 2 or 3. I would say small budget Indie games may be considered full on art since an individual or small group if individuals can come together to make it whether people buy it or not, but big budget games only get created in the hopes of profit.

[TSC_1]

So, I see we're getting tied up in this art debate. Here's my take:

For years I've argued that video games are art. I still believe it. The one nice thing that's come out of this mess is that those who have been arguing they aren't art for years have changed their tune... because it happens to be the easiest way to discredit gamers and gaming at the moment. So that's nice.

Now, just because games are art doesn't mean we lose the argument. It's perfectly rational to believe that games are art and that Bioware should change the ending to ME3. Why? Because novels are art, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle changed the ending to one of his Sherlock Holmes stories (Holmes originally died) because of fan pressure. That doesn't make his books, or books in general any less art. And movies are art, and most get test screenings. If audiences don't like something, that something is changed. That doesn't make movies any less art.

Same argument for video games. Changing something doesn't make them any less art.

Also, it's important to note that an artist is never required to change his or her art. But if they want to sell that art? Or if they want to sell future art set in the same universe? Well, it's a good idea for them to change their art when their audience is dissatisfied.

That's what's being lost in all this discussion: yes, artists have the right not to change their art. That's indisputable. But, you know what? Artists also have the right to change their art, if they think it's a good idea. And, for commercial art, not being able to sell your art is a good reason to decide to make a change, as is the artist's right.

[VonVerrikan]

Bionic Weapon wrote...

First off good morning! 

All I want is for someone who uses the its art explanation ( without actually explaing anything) to explain to me:
-what was amazing about the ending and why/ how it made sense to them.
-why characters we're doing out of character things and they were ok with it.
- how their choices in the end mattered.
 And so on.

If someone can do that I'd greatly appreciate it. It's getting really bad that no one is willing to actually defend the ending with reasons other than" its art" or "you just don't/aren't smart enough to understand"

Oh trust me I can't agree more. People who are defending this game and it's endings are generally doing a pretty poor job of it. I have yet to see a decent explination for why it turned out so bad, and why we should accept it as is.

[BigglesFlysAgain]

Cybermortis wrote...

Re; Quarian Fleet;

It is explained in the course of the games that the bulk of the Quarian fleet consists of second hand ships - some bought others salvaged. While all of their ships carry some guns for defence, they have only a small number of true warships and those they do possess are rather old or presumably were abandoned after suffering heavy damage. They certainly lack any ship-building capability of their own with which to build and dedicated warships of their own.

Re; Lack of Frigates in the fight scenes;

It is explained in the codex of the first two games, if not the third, that space combat is fought at three ranges. The dreadnoughts stay at long range, where their powerful guns can dominate the battle. Cruisers hold the middle ground, being capable of assisting the dreadnoughts in long range fire support or getting in close if needed. The frigates are the close in fighters, using their speed and mobility to move into short range combat with opposing fleets and engage enemy ships with lasers - which barrier shields don't protect against.

The reason we tend to see the cruisers during the fight scenes is simply because the bigger ships are further back, and the smaller ships are, presumably, on the flanks out of the way of the main gunnery exchanges at the start, and probably trying to hit the Reapers from behind in the later stages - it is also reasonable to assume that the frigates work in groups more than the larger cruisers do.

We don't really get to see much of the tactics used in the ME universe in space combat, only the initial stages in ME1&3. ME1's later scenes of the Alliance ships are not representative of tactics, since in order to target Sovereign the ships had to get inside the arms of the Citadel which eliminated the possibility of manoeuvring into the ships ideal combat ranges. The cramped space would probably have prevented the dreadnoughts of that fleet from directly engaging, and the frigates would not have been able to survive in such a close quarters fight where they could not use their speed and agility to stay out of trouble - Normandy being the exception.

So the space battles in ME are, in fact, consistent with the lore set down in the series.

Man I really think about this stuff far too much...which is rather surprising considering that I rarely bother looking at codex entries....

All seems fair, would have been nice to have some variation in different classes of cruisers ect, but you only see them for a few seconds, also would have been nice to see a carrier.

[MetalCargo999]

RussianOrc wrote...

This "art" argument is ridiculous, i've paid for a game that was since the begining about overcoming impossible odds and triumphing.I mean, come on, the logo of the game is "take back earth" and now in the very end of the trillogy they're betraying everything they've created.
There is no art in betraying your roots.

Absolutely.  It is art, but that doesn't make it exempt from criticism and market demands.

[the_secondhammer]

Was away 3 hours, something new?

[Cybermortis]

TheSimbul wrote...

"This whole thing is sort of pointless, though. If BioWare does a new ending DLC it won’t be the first time. It won’t set any precedent. Bethesda (among others) have released alt-ending DLCs in the past, including the now-famous Broken Steel DLC for Fallout 3."

Erik Kain is my new Hero. IGN, you hired the wrong people...

Note; It was pointed out by a games developer that the original Fallout game ALSO had its ending changed. In the original game the ending was timed after a certain point. Fan complaints resulted in a patch that eliminated the timed element, even though it was technically an important part of the game's story.

So...changing the ending of games due to pressure from the players is hardly a new thing...The only thing different here is the degree of change being asked for and wanted. And, it should be noted, the probable effect on Bioware should they simply fail to change anything - and an 'explination' simply ISN'T going to be good enough.

[MetalCargo999]

the_secondhammer wrote...

Was away 3 hours, something new?

Not unitl PAX, methinks...

[lijygr]

Today is the March, 26th - which means the date of e-mail campaign.
Sent my e-mail couple of minutes ago.
Here is goes:





Dear BioWare,

This mail is sent to you in support of #RetakeMassEffect movement.

I
understand that most probably my mail will not get any attention of
BioWare personnel, and will go directly to the Junk Mail folder. But
there always is the hope, you know.

This is my second letter,
and I decided to send it because I guess that you still did not
understand what we, your loyal fans, are demanding. I'm afraid that
there is the possibility, that you gonna miss the point second - and the
last - time, and make your loyal fans even more disappointed.

Based
on the Ray Muzyka statement and responses of BioWare personnel in Mass
Effect Twitter, it seems that all what you gonna provide to the fans is
some "clarification" and "closure".

Here is the problem. If you
would look into the BioWare Social Network forums postings, you would
find that the overwhelming majority of fans are not happy with the
Red-Green-Blue Explosion ending. They demand to get rid of RGB Explosion
ending completely. In other words, "clarification" is not enough.

We
do appreciate your artistic integrity and your vision, but we - as the
fans and the customers - want the endings to be completely different.
The existing endings contains so many plot holes (the
"supernova"-lization of the Galaxy due to Mass Effect Relay destruction -
remember the Arrival DLC? - is just a minor example), that it seems
reasonable to re-write the endings.
 
Besides, we were promised
that the endings will be affected by all our actions and decisions in
Mass Effect universe, which, obviously, is the false statement.

Many
of us fans want to have a "happy" ending. Let our Shepards to reunite
with his/her Love Interest and friends. The epic saga is not doomed to
be the dark one.

And the last point. You should consider our
movement and our demand not as the threat, but as the opportunity to
regain the trust you've lost. You have a chance not only to return your
loyal fans back, but to make the Mass Effect 3 even more profitable for
BioWare and EA. The happy fan is the good customer for upcoming DLC's,
and the disappointed fan is the lost customer for good.

I and a
lot of other members of #RetakeMassEffect movement ask you to listen to
us and hear our demands. Please, let our dreams come true. You know we
deserve it.


Sincerely,
Your fan and customer,
...

[BigglesFlysAgain]

You could argue that EA are the customer, they Commissioned Bioware to make them a successful game, and when the parameters of this were not met, I.e unpopular with fans, and not selling well then they can ask them to change it.