873 réponses à ce sujet

[cellotlix]

Really though, you are just adorable. Keep up the good fight, precious!

[MintyCool]

leondes1 wrote...

Bingo, troll exposed, Someone at bioware lock this trend already.

The Retake Motto.

[omntt]

So, i was -slowly- replaying the first game, and i talked to the sovereign on virmire....and the starchild is dumb, or an utter liar. Good for you that you like the ending, i respect your opinion, but i'll never accept it as it is.

[anonymousx]

Video games are not art. Writing is not art. Compromising or supplementing bad writing does not detract or add to an object's artistic value because it is the equivalent of multiplying a sum by zero.

I draw comic books. I am not an artist. I am a craftsman. There is a difference between Maus and
Marvel Super Heroes #223. Mass Effect is firmly in the latter. Trying to take a garden variety Space Opera concept and trying to qualify it as art is laughable.

Doing an about face in the third installment of a Space Opera trilogy is not genius. It's just desperation.

People who want to support the ending because of artistic integrity are giving BioWare too much credit. There is no art present to protect. The endings were all about creating a new slate for the next Mass Effect game. Anyone expecting to be happy with what BioWare puts out next is sadly mistaken, because there is only so much they are going to be able to change in the context of their future goals.

[111987]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...


Sure, but how is this any different than the sustainability of the Citadel races?

or Krogan....or any other free willed being...........no answer for this at all


God child proclaims inevitability, oniscience in the last 2 min lol be serious

Synthetics could achieve a technological singularity that would be impossible to defeat. They would wipe out all organic life. Or at least, that's what the Reaper's are trying to prevent.

Organics could never do the same. Try to understand the argument before simply dismissing it.

[CavScout]

Sassafrass23 wrote...

When you raise over 70k in revenue to support your claims like we did then ill view your topic as the majority. Otherwise YOU are the minority here not us
.Hold the line

Besides the fact that the vast majority of the RetakeME haven't donated a cent to that cause, are you suggesting that you are using that cause to give legitimacy to your claims?

[Cloaking_Thane]

MintyCool wrote...

leondes1 wrote...

Bingo, troll exposed, Someone at bioware lock this trend already.

The Retake Motto.

you state in previous posts noted that you dont support artistic integrity at all

[Cloaking_Thane]

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...


Sure, but how is this any different than the sustainability of the Citadel races?

or Krogan....or any other free willed being...........no answer for this at all


God child proclaims inevitability, oniscience in the last 2 min lol be serious

Synthetics could achieve a technological singularity that would be impossible to defeat. They would wipe out all organic life. Or at least, that's what the Reaper's are trying to prevent.

Organics could never do the same. Try to understand the argument before simply dismissing it.

that's absolutely no argument thats simply you making things up

[CavScout]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Artists can change their art, I don't think anyone is disputing that. What is being disputed is that consumer have the right to force said changes.

Of course we can, why would you think otherwise?

Consumers have the right to not purchase a product, they don't have the right to design it...

[Shallyah]

ashdrake1 wrote...


Nothing.  The issue is giving into these demands.  That is what compromises artistic integrity.  So what if you had issues with their story?  It's their story, they spent years telling it.  Pride in ones work is paramount to a true artist.  It is thier view they are expressing.  Changing it into something else because of complaints and money ( cause they will charge you for it) does not really reflect the views of the writers, but pressure from the publishers.

I'll tell as fan of comic books, that more often than not, writers work on forced schedules and very reduced space. Often a brilliantly conceived story isn't given neither the time or space it needs to see the light in full splendor. You see comic books being put together in 200 pages delivered in 12 installments over the course of a year, while the author would have needed  600 pages and two years to deliver what he really had in mind up to perfection.

This often leads to stories that have these so called "plot holes" or parts that seem missing, but that are really not missing, it's just that the author had to priorize, and some bits had to be left out of the spotlight.

It is not outrageous to think that something like this could have happened to Bioware with Mass Effect 3, its artists and developped pushed by EA to deliver the product within certain schedule.

Do you consider then, that you protect the artist's integrity by having Bioware stick with a product that perhaps wasn't optimal, as they have recognized themselves? What if... with more time to create DLC, time which we'll pay for, they'll deliver the true form of what they were after?

To really protect artist's integrity, you need to move out of a capitalist world as this is. And this is not only for the gaming industry, but for anything nowadays. Unless you are freelance and you only care to release your product when you consider it's reached its utter perfection, no artist in the modern world has the privilege of integrity. At most, they have timed integrity.

I for one believe that with additional time to release the DLC, Bioware will deliver something that is closer to what they have in mind. Really, think about it. Bioware is the king of RPGs and personalized adventures with touch and emotion. They could have simply not forgotten to show us a few cutscenes at the end of the game where each of our chosen war assets play their part in the war, or some of our most intimate and dear moments with our LI flash through our mind (rather than 3 pre-set persons). And that is just a couple of examples.

Modifié par Shallyah, 22 mars 2012 - 03:14 .

[OblivionDawn]

Cpl_Facehugger wrote...

Why's this called Checkmate? I don't get it. I mean, okay, thread for the hundred or so people who actually liked the ending, yeah. But where's the checkmate here?

They think Ray Muzyka's statements are like a victory for people who like the ending as it is or whatever.

It clearly isn't, he said the ending is, at the least, going to be added on to (changed). So really, the majority got what they wanted in the end, and OP is presumptuous and butthurt.

Modifié par OblivionDawn, 22 mars 2012 - 03:14 .

[SpideyKnight]

 Does this all boil down to your opinion that art should never be changed?  Because honestly if it is it is easily refuted with one of the most notable and most revised works of art.


*spoilers*

The Bible.  

Oh also the Mona Lisa is v2, lol?

Modifié par SpideyKnight, 22 mars 2012 - 03:15 .

[Lexagg]

CavScout wrote...

Sassafrass23 wrote...

When you raise over 70k in revenue to support your claims like we did then ill view your topic as the majority. Otherwise YOU are the minority here not us
.Hold the line

Besides the fact that the vast majority of the RetakeME haven't donated a cent to that cause, are you suggesting that you are using that cause to give legitimacy to your claims?

Besides the fact that you can't back up anything you say and basically talk out of your ass, I'm sure you are correct.

[Cloaking_Thane]

CavScout wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Artists can change their art, I don't think anyone is disputing that. What is being disputed is that consumer have the right to force said changes.

Of course we can, why would you think otherwise?

Consumers have the right to not purchase a product, they don't have the right to design it...

Sure we do, I can purchase a painting and help in design and though process just as one example

[mohdhm]

OP is trolling, it is something i would do when i'm 13 years old.

[Lexagg]

SpideyKnight wrote...

 Does this all boil down to your opinion that art should never be changed?  Because honestly if it is it is easily refuted with one of the most notable and most revised works of art.


*spoilers*

The Bible.  

Oh also the Mona Lisa is v2, lol?

"Art can't be changed" is the argument of ****ty artists.

[111987]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...


Sure, but how is this any different than the sustainability of the Citadel races?

or Krogan....or any other free willed being...........no answer for this at all


God child proclaims inevitability, oniscience in the last 2 min lol be serious

Synthetics could achieve a technological singularity that would be impossible to defeat. They would wipe out all organic life. Or at least, that's what the Reaper's are trying to prevent.

Organics could never do the same. Try to understand the argument before simply dismissing it.

that's absolutely no argument thats simply you making things up

Clearly you did not understand the ending. But okay, I'm willing to agree to disagree.

[CavScout]

chkchkchk wrote...

Dear OP:

Participatory art. Google it.

False equivalency is false.

ME players don't create content.. we get to pick from content made available to us. We don't get to tell a story of our own, we get to pick a story from the available stories.

[Lexagg]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Artists can change their art, I don't think anyone is disputing that. What is being disputed is that consumer have the right to force said changes.

Of course we can, why would you think otherwise?

Consumers have the right to not purchase a product, they don't have the right to design it...

Sure we do, I can purchase a painting and help in design and though process just as one example

Yay, fail analogy! How about this - you purchase a wrapped book that the ad tells you is a noir detective. You bring it home and it's a teen love story about vampires.

[Suraxis]

So op's basically saying I'm supposed to take it up the ass whenever corporate dishes out a **** pile. That, because it's some artsy fartsy ending that made no sense, I'm supposed to simply accept it without question. Well, what if I made you a few choose your own adventure books, but before the end of the 20 novel epic, I take a **** between the last couple pages, marring the series forever. You'd accept that as a "creative risk," as "artistic integrity?" And if my steaming pile of human poo wouldn't pass, please, by all means, explain why.

[Dreogan]

Suraxis wrote...

So op's basically saying I'm supposed to take it up the ass whenever corporate dishes out a **** pile. That, because it's some artsy fartsy ending that made no sense, I'm supposed to simply accept it without question. Well, what if I made you a few choose your own adventure books, but before the end of the 20 novel epic, I take a **** between the last couple pages, marring the series forever. You'd accept that as a "creative risk," as "artistic integrity?" And if my steaming pile of human poo wouldn't pass, please, by all means, explain why.

Basically, yes. Because ART.

[ashdrake1]

Tyrzun wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

Witchfinder General wrote...

While the OP is effective it is also a red herring. It is rightfully proclaiming games as art, but it is also conveniently forgetting that games are consumer products as well. And it is a consumer's right to complain when they feel cheated in the sense that the product did not deliver what was promised.

I am confused, most art is a consumer product.  Be it paintings, movies, books or games the majority are sold.  Hence consumer product.  

This issue goes far beyond complaing, it is outright demanding as well as attacks on the company.

What's wrong with demanding it? It's a business. We can demand whatever we want from a business.

Nothing.  The issue is giving into these demands.  That is what compromises artistic integrity.  So what if you had issues with their story?  It's their story, they spent years telling it.  Pride in ones work is paramount to a true artist.  It is thier view they are expressing.  Changing it into something else because of complaints and money ( cause they will charge you for it) does not really reflect the views of the writers, but pressure from the publishers.

#1 They work for us.  

#2 They advertised and promised a DIFFERENT ending and product.

Yet you dare mention integritty?  To do the bait and switch is UNETHICAL and not legal

You talk to an artist and he says he wants to sell you a painting of a tree, it's in this box you can't see, you pay them for it, take it home and open it up and it's a painting of a frog!  They do NOT have the right to sell you something different after you bought what was promised.  That is unethical and it is not defended by artistic freedom.  You are sold a Blu-Ray player you GET a blu-ray player, no one has the right to swtich it with a CD player.  it's that simple.

I'll repost ALL of the quotes from Bioware about what kind of ending we were going to have right before release if you insist. 

None of you have any grounds to stand on that make false advertising ok or ETHICAL while you scream about integrity...

1. Any artist that sells anything works for consumer/s

2.
If your Readiness Rating is below 1,750 points, Earth is destroyed
regardless of the choice to destroy the Reapers or become one.
At a 1,750 Readiness Rating, if you choose to destroy the Reapers, Earth is destroyed.
At a 2,050 Readiness Rating, if you choose to become a Reaper, Earth is saved.
At a 2,350 Readiness Rating, if you choose to destroy the Reapers, Earth is devastated but still there.
At a 2,650 Readiness Rating, if you choose to destroy the Reapers, Earth is saved.
At a 2,800 Readiness Rating you’re able to create synergy between organics and synthetics, saving Earth and the galaxy.
At a 4,000 Readiness Rating, if you choose to destroy the Reapers and “saved” Anderson, Shepard lives.
At a 5,000 Readiness Rating, if you choose to destroy the Reapers and did not “save” Anderson, Shepard lives.
If
you imported a save where the collector’s base was destroyed or you
didn’t import a Mass Effect 2 save, then these are your possible
endings:

If your Readiness Rating is below 1,750 points, Earth is
destroyed regardless of the choice to destroy the Reapers or become
one.
At a 1,750 Readiness Rating, if you choose to become a Reaper, Earth is destroyed.
At a 1,900 Readiness Rating, if you choose to destroy the Reapers, Earth is devastated but still there.
At a 2,350 Readiness Rating, if you choose to become a Reaper, Earth is saved.
At a 2,650 Readiness Rating, if you choose to destroy the Reapers, Earth is saved.
At a 2,800 Readiness Rating, you are able to create synergy between organics and synthetics, saving Earth and the galaxy.
At a 4,000 Readiness Rating, if you choose to destroy the Reapers and “saved” Anderson, Shepard lives.
At a 5,000 Readiness Rating, if you choose to destroy the Reapers and did not “save” Anderson, Shepard lives.


On top of that you have three choices to make.  Even if it does not meet your "standard there are a varity of endings.

Art is nothing more than a expression of views and opinions.  Are you saying your own thoughts on the issue would be subject to change if someone paid you for it?  That your anger at the ending meant nothing because you received money for it?  That would make it allright?

[MintyCool]

CavScout wrote...

False equivalency is false.

I could have used this instead of writing a paragraph of logic in a lot of my replies to Retakers; could have saved me some time.

I'm stealing this from you. luv u.

Modifié par MintyCool, 22 mars 2012 - 03:19 .

[Cloaking_Thane]

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

111987 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...


Sure, but how is this any different than the sustainability of the Citadel races?

or Krogan....or any other free willed being...........no answer for this at all


God child proclaims inevitability, oniscience in the last 2 min lol be serious

Synthetics could achieve a technological singularity that would be impossible to defeat. They would wipe out all organic life. Or at least, that's what the Reaper's are trying to prevent.

Organics could never do the same. Try to understand the argument before simply dismissing it.

that's absolutely no argument thats simply you making things up

Clearly you did not understand the ending. But okay, I'm willing to agree to disagree.

I was wondering when the I'm smarter than you would come out....didn't take long.

So Godchild states that synthetics will always attempt to wipe out organics...and that at face value is enough to sustain you. So be it.

[Dreogan]

ashdrake1 wrote...

Art is nothing more than a expression of views and opinions.  Are you saying your own thoughts on the issue would be subject to change if someone paid you for it?  That your anger at the ending meant nothing because you received money for it?  That would make it allright?

My opinion is you are wrong. You cannot change my opinion because art.