333 réponses à ce sujet

[Ancalemon]

"As a final product, it is the expression of those who created it, and its sole objective is to be consumed--not recreated--by its audience."

Yes, because no one *ever* publishes NYT bestsellers that started out as fanfiction http://www.amazon.co.../dp/0345803485/), or adapts classic works into *wildly popular* new works (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1475582/), or...I could go on, but really, what an appallingly shortsighted and ignorant statement.

[KorPhaeron]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Sireniankyle1 wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

So, your point is that because all gaming sites are biased and have a serious conflict of interests when reporting such issues, we should just assume that they're not?

They're not biased. They're just tired of the BS and the fact that the lot of you are making real gamers and real fans look bad. You're giving the gaming community as a whole a bad name.

You're making it so that if anyone posts something positive, you troll them right off the boards. No wonder people are afraid to say anything.

So you'd have us sit there and take it? If you don't already live in America, they'd love to have another conformist. I can say that because I AM an American.

Hate the ending all you want, return it if you have to. But you have no right to demand them change it. It wasn't YOURS to begin with.

I'm an American, too. What does that have to do with anything? Because I'm not a sheep? I actually speak out against people who have been bullying those gamers who have actually liked the game?

I actually dont understand people like you. I have no right?

Of couarse I have the right, I have the right to do whatever i please, its called free will.

I think people like you are using the wrong words, having the "right" to do something is based on your morals not on sociaety.

Modifié par KorPhaeron, 14 mars 2012 - 03:24 .

[2484Stryker]

So...game companies can make whatever predictions and/or promises about what their games would be like and it's completely OK if the end products are basically the antithesis of what they promised. But when fans argue and complain about it, it's entitlement and completely wrong? WTF...

[s.nebulous]

Tartilus wrote...

It's a common theme I've been seeing lately, sort of a... I'm actually not familiar with the proper terminology. It's a position adopted by individuals after thinking over a matter (in this instance, the nature of art) but which nevertheless is actually less congruous with the reality of the situation than the unthinking interpretation.

As I posted elsewhere, and as a writer myself, the immutability of stories and their 'sacredness' as works of art is nonsense, and I'm unfamiliar with any writer who feels otherwise. It's an artifact of a lack of understanding regarding how art is made - an expectation that rather than being the product of hard work and endless reiteration (which it is), it's some mystical Other, drawn from the aether and immune to any sort of objective reasoning. It's almost pseudo-religious, and it's nonsense. Art in a vacuum is indeed subjective, but novels are almost never art in a vacuum, and trilogies most assuredly are not. While I agree with individuals stating that we cannot demand alterations, the position that there is something philosophically wrong with an author altering a story after its initial release is metaphysical, not rational, and certainly should not be proffered as fact. Unless it was the author's intention to fail to bring closure to a significant number of people, their work is just as open to criticism and revision as any other non-art product. The fact that such alterations are uncommon in novels (they do happen, more often than you might think, though on smaller scales,) is more a matter of logistics than principle.

Videogames are the first truly fluid medium - indeed, it's a given that additional story will be released, and ostensibly it will (if only in incidental fashions) have the effect of altering the original story. The suggestion that we should not be able to voice our opinions as to how those resources should be directed is nothing short of bizarre, and stems from this pseudo-idealization of art. Writers (and painters, sculpters, etc.) are not savants, gifted with some amazing gift; we're mostly regular people doing a job that takes hard work, practice, and time. Accordingly, our products are as fallible as we are, and when they fail to elicit the desired reaction, they can be fixed. They don't have to be fixed, which is a point I'm finding it more and more important to stress, but they can be.

Tartilus wrote this ealier in the thread.  It was just ignored by those arguing. Suddently it seems relevent again as the conversation seems to have come full circle.

[KorPhaeron]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Sireniankyle1 wrote...

I love how people get on here saying that BioWare has the right to do as they wish, but they fail to realize that we have a right to complain.

Complain until you're blue in the face. What you don't have the right to do is demand BioWare change anything about their game.

Again with that word "right" I dont think it means what you think it means.

That word is based on free will and morality, not on whatever your using it for.

[viperabyss]

annoyingpoodle wrote...


ok. 
So your first point is that the AI could morph into a form that Shepard can relate to, so your saying that this AI can read minds? You consider this to be more likely then that the reapers are trying to influence shepard?

We all know Shepard have numerous implants. The AI knows that too (it actually pointed it out when explaining the destruction option). It could've read the implant, and known what really motivate Shepard.

The gun not running out of ammo is a design oversight? Do you really think they would put together a entire game and then have a "design oversight" during the ending? If this was a side mission then sure but this is the ending which they know everyone is going to be playing I think they would have play tested this enough to figure this out if it was a design oversight

Have you tried walking the entire platform where you made the decision? Towards the back (if you turn around when you just ride the elevator), the background will become a hall of mirrors. This shows that the area was not actually programmed properly, and it was definitely hastely done. This definitely supports the possibility that there were a lot of design oversight, no?

Coats said noone made it to the beam as you stated ok so this is proof of what I said? I don't see your point here.

My point is that Coats was right to say no one made it to the beam, because he said that before Shepard got up. He also left the area when Shepard moved towards the beam (back to FOB, probably).

Again your calling the normandy scene a "plothole" do you think that a company that poured millions of dollars into a game is going to leave a massive plothole during the ending cutscene unintentionally?

And again, do you really think Bioware, a multi-billion dollar company with a reputation of releasing good games with excellent storylines, sold us a game that does not have an ending?

It didn't end with him indoctrinated it ended with him beating the indoctrination and waking up after being hit by the laser which is shown in the hidden scene if you choose the destroy ending. (choosing the destroy ending is beating the indoctrination notice how the "child" trys to convince you not to pick this option). Also the kid said if you choose destroy you will also die as you are part synthentic so then why do you ONLY wake up if you choose the destroy ending?( because the child is the voice of the reapers trying to indoctrinate you)

Let's run through the facts again. The AI tells Shepard that the destroy ending will kill all synthetics. Then he turns to Shepard, and says "you're part Synthetics too". AI did not tell him he's going to die. AI tells Shepard that he's part Synthetics, and those parts are very likely to die. Shepard could've died without those implants, or he could've not. 

In the end, it all depends on your EMS, which I think is very fitting to what ME usually have (complete more quest = better ending). If you have high EMS, Shepard is more likely to survive due to his strength in life. If not, then he dies. 

I remembered writing explanations to every single "evidence" people have put up, but I did not finish it. Perhaps if I have time, I'll finish it and put it up. IIRC, only two of the "evidences" actually supports to the theory.

One last thing, notice how the Bioware employee responded to the commentor in the thread you just link me. He said "it will provide the service you're looking for". Service, not answers. I could be splitting hairs, just like the crowd who believes in the indoctrination theory, but it doesn't really sound that positive to me. Adding Casey Hudson's interview, as well as one of the responses from BW employee (who said he should start a petition to change the ending of Hamlet), I'm not holding out too much hope.

[viperabyss]

malkuth74 wrote...



And your telling people not to express their opinion.. Maybe you should just stay out of these threads instead of commanding people what to do.

If you like the ednings Im fine with that good for you.

Most of us are not though. And its about time people like you start understanding that.  And if you don't like it to god dam bad.

They can definitely express their opinion, as I can express mine. Notice that I've never said people who believes in the indoctrination theory should shut up. I said I don't believe in the indoctrination theory, and here is why. 

And for the record, I hate the ending as much as you do. I'd love to believe in the indoctrination theory, but so far there's no concrete proof for me to get on the bandwagon. And as I explained above, the fact that BW has been silent, Casey Hudson's interview, and one of the BW employee basically told us to F ourselves, I'm not holding too much hope.

I'd love to believe, but I just can't bring myself to until more concrete proof from BW emerges.

[Thetri]

I will continue to buy bioware games no matter what. They may not be as good as past games but they are a hell of a lot better than generic fps games like MW3. You never know bioware's next game might actually be really good. If you don't buy it you will never know.

[Jake71887]

Thetri wrote...

I will continue to buy bioware games no matter what. They may not be as good as past games but they are a hell of a lot better than generic fps games like MW3. You never know bioware's next game might actually be really good. If you don't buy it you will never know.

I sure as hell can wait a month or two and find out, rather than pre-ordering, or purchasing CEs... 

[Piarath]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Sireniankyle1 wrote...

I love how people get on here saying that BioWare has the right to do as they wish, but they fail to realize that we have a right to complain.

Complain until you're blue in the face. What you don't have the right to do is demand BioWare change anything about their game.

As a matter of fact, yes. She does. Absolutely. In every way. From a consumer standpoint, from an artistic standpoint, and from a practicaly standpoint. She has every right to demand BioWare change their game.

How many times do people have to example/evidence the truth of that? Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't make it any less true. Sorry.

[Bendok]

It's especially bad business to badmouth your advertisers in any way, and the suits at the top will instruct the writers as such.

Gaming Journalism is an oxymoron 90% of the time unfortauntely.

Modifié par Bendok, 14 mars 2012 - 03:47 .

[annoyingpoodle]

viperabyss wrote...

malkuth74 wrote...



And your telling people not to express their opinion.. Maybe you should just stay out of these threads instead of commanding people what to do.

If you like the ednings Im fine with that good for you.

Most of us are not though. And its about time people like you start understanding that.  And if you don't like it to god dam bad.

They can definitely express their opinion, as I can express mine. Notice that I've never said people who believes in the indoctrination theory should shut up. I said I don't believe in the indoctrination theory, and here is why. 

And for the record, I hate the ending as much as you do. I'd love to believe in the indoctrination theory, but so far there's no concrete proof for me to get on the bandwagon. And as I explained above, the fact that BW has been silent, Casey Hudson's interview, and one of the BW employee basically told us to F ourselves, I'm not holding too much hope.

I'd love to believe, but I just can't bring myself to until more concrete proof from BW emerges.

I'm fine with everyone having their own interpretation of the ending and I'm also fine with people disliking the ending. But the one thing that just makes me laugh uncontrolably is the "petitions" to change the ending just thinking about a group of "adults" petitioning a video game company to change their ending is hilarious to me.

[Thetri]

If bioware releases a new mass effect or kotor, I will buy it on day 1 no questions asked. When dragon age 3 is released I will wait till until the price drops. I see no reason to condemn a company because you dislike a certain game.

[KorPhaeron]

Piarath wrote...

HenchxNarf wrote...

Sireniankyle1 wrote...

I love how people get on here saying that BioWare has the right to do as they wish, but they fail to realize that we have a right to complain.

Complain until you're blue in the face. What you don't have the right to do is demand BioWare change anything about their game.

As a matter of fact, yes. She does. Absolutely. In every way. From a consumer standpoint, from an artistic standpoint, and from a practicaly standpoint. She has every right to demand BioWare change their game.

How many times do people have to example/evidence the truth of that? Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't make it any less true. Sorry.

heh as I said above , the thing I dont understand is why they use that word "right":huh:

haveing a right to do something is based on free will and morality, not scociety norms.

speaking agains the goverment is legal in the US, in N Korea is ilegal, and will probably get you shot, but that doesnt mean you dont have the "right" to do so.

[FabricatedWookie]

I feel now, the strongest backlash shouldn't be against bioware, but against gaming media who has taken it as priority one to remind consumers of the hierarchy inherent in a product. They are the engines of game sales, they are the proponents of "gaming culture," and here they are trying to opinionate on a consumer trend. Kotaku, gamespot, destructoid, hell even the articles in favor of what we do seem parasitic and opportunistic. Whatever you can write that can get the traffic to your door. To Hell with that.

[Ksandor]

This alone is a legal liability. One can sue them.

"The situation has escalated further over the weekend, as Bioware’s claim that the content wasn’t stripped from the title, and was developed as an entirely different storyline after completion of the game, has been apparently proven false. In actuality, the new squad member was already on the disc at launch, and with a few tweaks of code, is available without purchasing the DLC at all. A video exists of the process here. Now Bioware did something not only to upset fans, but it appears that they lied about it as well."

http://www.forbes.co...ass-effect-3/2/

Modifié par Ksandor, 14 mars 2012 - 04:11 .

[Bantz]

I spoke with a manager at gamestop once and he told me that often they have to talk about how great games are even if they suck. Because when doing reviews if you write "this game is ****" then the next time that company releases a game you're cut out and not allowed to play it before hand/review it. So these reviewers really are kind of handicapped.

[ananna21]

Jeez and always found their reviews to be valid.

[Rune-Chan]

I wouldn't say we are "entitled" to anything, but when a game developer lies about what their product contains, then fans do have the right to be annoyed.

Although of course, technically speaking they didn't "lie". We got to "choose" between three different options at the end, the fact that they all lead to the same thing is apparently our problem for expecting something else.

[viperabyss]

annoyingpoodle wrote...

I'm fine with everyone having their own interpretation of the ending and I'm also fine with people disliking the ending. But the one thing that just makes me laugh uncontrolably is the "petitions" to change the ending just thinking about a group of "adults" petitioning a video game company to change their ending is hilarious to me.

And how is it different to people who believed this was an indoctrination? You're convincing yourself that the ending was just indoctrination, hoping Bioware releases additional content to validate the theory. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but from what Casey Hudson said on his twitter and the interview, it doesn't seem like a possibility.

[Exeider]

i replied to this with the following, i think you will enjoy it.

I got one reply to the writer of this article.

Who the hell established that video games are  "Art"?

I am a game designer, I make "Games" not
"Art". More specifically, I make games to get paid. I make them
because they are fun, and that its cool to see you ideas come alive. But I also
acknowledge that if I create a universe, that after a fashion, it no longer is
solely under my control, and that ironically I will have to listen to the
audience. Why? because A) They consume it, and therefore are more in "tune"
to the natural flow of what the universe's story is telling. and Because
they are the paying customer, and If I want to see more of their money, I damn
well better listen to them.

 

Anybody who says video games are "Art" is just
fooling themselves, or are just idiots, either way, its just erroneous.  Video Games are a medium, a format of
expression if you will, to tell a story. A Story can be art, the visual element
of a game CAN be art, but the Game in and of itself is NOT.

and by the way Ms. Parker, Rushdie did tell his publishers
not to translate the book or issue the paperback, so he did back pedal there.
And Monet conveyed emotion through impressionist imaginary, not Full HD CG,
with 500 page game script. So to be honest that's a Straw Man at best. And even
if you want to go that route Monet's paintings still followed a rule set that
he had set for himself.

Mass Effect 3's endings do not, they literally feel like
they were made by someone else and slapped in after the fact.

Bioware stated that there would be 16 different endings, in
that regard they failed to deliver. The Nonsensical endings just added fuel to
that fire. and the Nature of those endings also precludes the Mass Effect MMo
that people were expecting to be announced.

Can't have an MMO without the Mass Relays kids. Otherwise,
its not Mass Effect. It's like Babylon 5 without Jumpgates or Stargate SG-1
without Stargates.

Also, please try to keep your self-contradictions to a
minimum, You state Mass Effect 3 is Art then you state its a Product, well
which is it? Art or Product.  Products
are customized to the will of the consumer, Art is customized to the will of
the Artist. You cannot have it both ways madam. Furthermore, You state that
choice is not owned by the individual. Choice is by definition owned by the
individual making it. and While Bio owns the avenues of choice, all of the
paths available, they do not dictate the exact manner of those choices. Person
A will inherently make different choices then Person B, from both a morality, belief,
even quantum mechanical differences. Bioware does not own all of that madam.

You state that "A work of art is brought into being by
the creation of a two-way relationship between both entities" yet your
entire article is able insisting Bioware not respect that relationship.

 

Furthermore, when you create a world and then invite the
masses to take up residence in that world, you already making some concessions
whether you know it or not, by allowing some creative control, and yes the
audience in this case makes some creative choices. IE. When person A makes his
Shepard look and act one way, Person B makes their Shephard look and act
another. The entire game experience is customized. People have played through
Mass Effect, having their Shepard look one way, and for them, That's what
Shepard looks like, any the fact that s/he COULD look any other way doesn't
even enter their minds. So in essence Bioware has already conceded some
creative control by allowing all the options they do. By allowing players to write
the story by their actions and choices, they have in effect allowed the players
permission to control their respective universes.

 

If this was just simply, game makers expressing themselves,
then Bio ware should not have had the option to customize Shephard, or make any
choices and just follow the story THEY wanted to tell. Then and only then would
your argument have merit.

 

In the case of ME3's endings, the Choices were not really
choices at all, but different flavors of the same choice, literally, players
refer to the endings as Blue, Red and Green, because of the color of the energy
pulses, but the endings are exactly the same.

"But the work of art is done; it is finished. It cannot
be altered or deleted."

Computer programs by their very nature can always be
modified and updated, MMOs prove this conclusively. And as far as Art can't be
changed. Comic Book writers have been Retconning things for ages to either
write themselves out of a corner, or change the physics to be able to tell a
story, only to recon again to simplify the storyline back into something more
understandable. DC's "Crisis on Infinite Earths" comes to mind. the
fact that ME3 is a Computer program allows Bioware to correct mistakes.

And as far as "ceasing to be art." It can't cease
to be something it never was in the first place. And even if it was by your
logic, correcting in game bugs violates the Art, because it should be accepted
as is, flaws and all.

Your argument Ms. Parker is as illogical as ME3's endings,
and i would suggest A) maybe going back to that liberal arts college that you
graduated from and crack open a book on creative writing and understand HOW to
in fact write a story. and I would also request that you attend a course on
how to properly research things before you write them because your historical
examples are incorrect and misrepresented.

Thank you and good day.

-Æ

Modifié par Exeider, 14 mars 2012 - 06:45 .

[Shadow-Novus]

Exeider wrote...

i replied to this with the following, i think you will enjoy it.

I got one reply to the writer of this article.

Who the hell established that video games are  "Art"?

I am a game designer, I make "Games" not
"Art". More specifically, I make games to get paid. I make them
because they are fun, and that its cool to see you ideas come alive. But I also
acknowledge that if I create a universe, that after a fashion, it no longer is
solely under my control, and that ironically I will have to listen to the
audience. Why? because A) They consume it, and therefore are more in "tune"
to the natural flow of what the universe's story is telling. and Because
they are the paying customer, and If I want to see more of their money, I damn
well better listen to them.

 

Anybody who says video games are "Art" is just
fooling themselves, or are just idiots, either way, its just erroneous.  Video Games are a medium, a format of
expression if you will, to tell a story. A Story can be art, the visual element
of a game CAN be art, but the Game in and of itself is NOT.

and by the way Ms. Parker, Rushdie did tell his publishers
not to translate the book or issue the paperback, so he did back pedal there.
And Monet conveyed emotion through impressionist imaginary, not Full HD CG,
with 500 page game script. So to be honest that's a Straw Man at best. And even
if you want to go that route Monet's paintings still followed a rule set that
he had set for himself.

Mass Effect 3's endings do not, they literally feel like
they were made by someone else and slapped in after the fact.

Bioware stated that there would be 16 different endings, in
that regard they failed to deliver. The Nonsensical endings just added fuel to
that fire. and the Nature of those endings also precludes the Mass Effect MMo
that people were expecting to be announced.

Can't have an MMO without the Mass Relays kids. Otherwise,
its not Mass Effect. It's like Babylon 5 without Jumpgates or Stargate SG-1
without Stargates.

Also, please try to keep your self-contradictions to a
minimum, You state Mass Effect 3 is Art then you state its a Product, well
which is it? Art or Product.  Products
are customized to the will of the consumer, Art is customized to the will of
the Artist. You cannot have it both ways madam. Furthermore, You state that
choice is not owned by the individual. Choice is by definition owned by the
individual making it. and While Bio owns the avenues of choice, all of the
paths available, they do not dictate the exact manner of those choices. Person
A will inherently make different choices then Person B, from both a morality, belief,
even quantum mechanical differences. Bioware does not own all of that madam.

You state that "A work of art is brought into being by
the creation of a two-way relationship between both entities" yet your
entire article is able insisting Bioware not respect that relationship.

 

Furthermore, when you create a world and then invite the
masses to take up residence in that world, you already making some concessions
whether you know it or not, by allowing some creative control, and yes the
audience in this case makes some creative choices. IE. When person A makes his
Shepard look and act one way, Person B makes their Shephard look and act
another. The entire game experience is customized. People have played through
Mass Effect, having their Shepard look one way, and for them, That's what
Shepard looks like, any the fact that s/he COULD look any other way doesn't
even enter their minds. So in essence Bioware has already conceded some
creative control by allowing all the options they do. By allowing players to write
the story by their actions and choices, they have in effect allowed the players
permission to control their respective universes.

 

If this was just simply, game makers expressing themselves,
then Bio ware should not have had the option to customize Shephard, or make any
choices and just follow the story THEY wanted to tell. Then and only then would
your argument have merit.

 

In the case of ME3's endings, the Choices were not really
choices at all, but different flavors of the same choice, literally, players
refer to the endings as Blue, Red and Green, because of the color of the energy
pulses, but the endings are exactly the same.

"But the work of art is done; it is finished. It cannot
be altered or deleted."

Computer programs by their very nature can always be
modified and updated, MMOs prove this conclusively. And as far as Art can't be
changed. Comic Book writers have been Retconning things for ages to either
write themselves out of a corner, or change the physics to be able to tell a
story, only to recon again to simplify the storyline back into something more
understandable. DC's "Crisis on Infinite Earths" comes to mind. the
fact that ME3 is a Computer program allows Bioware to correct mistakes.

And as far as "ceasing to be art." It can't cease
to be something it never was in the first place. And even if it was by your
logic, correcting in game bugs violates the Art, because it should be accepted
as is, flaws and all.

Your argument Ms. Parker is as illogical as ME3's endings,
and i would suggest A) maybe going back to that liberal arts college that you
graduated from and crack open a book on creative writing and understand HOW to
in fact write a story. and I would also request that you attend a course on
how to properly research things before you write them because your historical
examples are incorrect and misrepresented.

Thank you and good day.

-Æ

*thunderous applause*

Modifié par Shadow-Novus, 14 mars 2012 - 07:13 .

[Exeider]

Thank you, Thank you

*takes a bow.*

"I am agentexeider and this is my favoite place on the internet."

-Æ

Modifié par Exeider, 14 mars 2012 - 07:29 .

[Janus382]

Exeider wrote...

Thank you, Thank you

*takes a bow.*

"I am agentexeider and this is my favoite place on the internet."

-Æ

The referenced post was chock full of win, along with previous posts about the nonsense that art is sacred and immutable.  

If you understood and appreciated (or are even simply content with) the ending(s) as they are now, that is awesome for you, seriously.  I don't understand how that's possible, personally, and I wish I was in your shoes.  No sarcasm.

I, for one, am not demanding that BW or any other creator/company alter their game to suit my tastes.

I'm asking BW to give us an ending that is actually coherent and stays true to the themes and spirit of the series, rather than this submissive nihilism thing we have now... or at the very least give us some kind of prologue.  As a fan who loved 99% of the series, I'm giving feedback which is normally welcomed.  They are free to say that it won't be changed and this is how they want it, of course, but I think it would be a mistake and most unfortunate.

Please take notice that I'm not asking for a "happily ever after end"... totally cool with people dying... I'd just like it to not have more plot holes and lore errors than the rest of the series combined and not make Shepard suddenly docile and agreeable.

Because as it stands I can no longer play ME.  I know it's "all about the journey, man, not the destination"... and the journey is damn amazing, but... it takes all the wind outta my sails when I know it's going to end like that, and with the knowledge that my uniquely-choiced Shepard will ultimately meet one of the same three color-coded fates.

Anyway, I won't be buying any DLC for any recent BW game (they all have their issues, but ME3 especially), nor any future BW game, and not be resubbing SWTOR in April (probably wouldn't have anyway), unless this is addressed in some way... at the very least with an official statement.  Not just because of the ending, mind you, but it was the straw that broke the camel's back, given that BW has been screwing up a lot of things lately (DA2, SWTOR, now this).

PS. I think the indoctrination theory has some merit and is pretty interesting, but that still leaves Shepard collapsed in rubble, while the Reaper's presumably win... unless we're supposed to interpret that Shepard dusts himself off and proceeds to save the day without us <_<

Modifié par Janus382, 14 mars 2012 - 09:48 .

[darknessmyown]

Exeider wrote...

Thank you, Thank you

*takes a bow.*

"I am agentexeider and this is my favoite place on the internet."

-Æ

*Standing ovation continues on for some time*

You have so wonderfully voiced all of what I was thinking and brought still more to my attention and I am very grateful for that. And I am not demanding anything, or anything all that specific, but I am most definately pleading with Bioware to fix this, because they messed up big here.