59 réponses à ce sujet

[clonedoriginzero]

we have no right to make them change it. it is their game, we have no legal say or otherwise to make them change their endings.

all we can do is request a different ending as a DLC and they have every right to refuse. we're not entitled to a better ending. we can ask for a better one though and they are a company that sells a product, so it is in their best interest to sell us a product that we ask for.

thats what alot of the people in this movement dont understand.

[TheJediSaint]

Look, if the devs feel that ME3's nonsense ending was okay because it's "art", that's fine. But just because something is art does not mean that people who don't like it cannot criticize it or ask what they did not like be changed. This is particularly true for people who paid for the game, expecting the game in end in a way that made sense, which in my opinion ME3 did not.

[ZodiEmish]

What we need to remember is even if they are an artist... They are not an artist first... They are a business. Bioware, and EA is out to make money, and keep shareholders happy. that is how it works. It's the sad truth. It's all about money, and keep their stock up.

We are the consumer. We buy their products. If there was not a consumer there would be no business, and finally no art.

Mass Effect's business model is to sell DLC.. ( the proof is with ME2 and all the DLC released. ) but the people who buy DLC are normally the Hard Core fans of the game. If you don't keep them happy. they will not buy your DLC, and you lose money.

It is all nice and good to say it is art and should not be changed, but the bottom line is, this game is about making money, not art. Period. And if they want to make money then they will be a smart business, and look at what their consumers want and adapt to what we want.

That is also why we need to hold the line and keep on letting them know what we, the majority of the hard care fans want.

[Kitsune413]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Kitsune413 wrote...

Do you think the Artistic Freedom being presented to us is true and pure?

I question whether any artistry can be pure and true. Even moreso for a game that cost millions of dollars to make and involved several hundred people.

So my question is: Do you believe the ending is what the visionary artists wanted? Can it have been corrupted or influenced by outside influences?

Outside influences are not a 'corruption.' Art, like everything else, requires compromise and the ability to work within limits.

So do you believe, then, that artistic freedom is a proper and tolerable defense to a want for change?

[Aurawolf]

I think that what we got was a cut and paste job. I can accept the ending but I beleive the ending wasn't what they promised.

[Wowlock]

I don't believe an ''artist '' that can come up with such a great journey throughout the series....can screw up this bad in the end where it matter the most.

There are definite outside influences at play. That ending simple doesn't fit with Mass Effect in ANY shape or form. Not artistically, not philosopically , not physically hell not even virtually....

And if people still protect it as an '' freedom of art'' , I have to doubt their definion of art and if they actually understand the themes behind the series and how the ending completely disregard them all..

[Mandemon]

 In my opinion, you discard your right to "Artistic Freedom" when you ask people to pay before product is ready and give them promises.
In such case, you provide people what they want. You sold your "art" as a product and thus you are required to provide product that you promised to customer.
If you first made product and then got payed, by people who liked your work, then you can claim Artistic Freedom.

In this case, EA and Bioware sold me product, which I pre-ordered and paid before it was ready. They promised the many things. These promises were broken, thus I didn't get the product I had paid for.

It's the same as paying for steak and getting cerials. You paid for something and you deserve it.

Better way to describe this:

Imagine you pay someone who is making a movie. He promises it's full of romance, action and drama, something like let's Indiana Jones. You pay and after he delivers what he promises. He asks for money again to make sequal. Remembering the last time, you agree and once again he delivers a movie that is more than you expected.

Then he asks for 3rd time, promisins conclusive ending, clearing up loose ends and brining satisfactory ending. You pay, eager to see how characters you love end up.

Movie comes out. It is all it was promised. Action. Drama. Romance. Mystery. Then, suddenly, in last five minutes tiny little kid comes out, says "This entire series has been about conflict between women and men and how women always oppress men". Then he kills the main character, teleports everyone else on Mars and destroys all technology on Earth.

How do you feel? I bet you would feel outraged, how ending is nonsensical. When you try to ask director WTF was he thinking, he doesn't answer. Then someone, who hasn't even watched the movies, says you have no right to complain, director has "Artistic Freedom".

[Asnine112]

Bioware has a right to do to the ending whatever they want

We have a right to stop buying their products

Simple

[MonkeyLungs]

Kitsune413 wrote...

Honestly, I'm a bit embarrased that this will be my first post here.

I'm just curious about a counter point thats been made. The perversion of Artistic Freedom:

Do you think the Artistic Freedom being presented to us is true and pure?

The argument assumes that the ending was a vision from the creators of the art. Commisioned Art still gives some room for artistic freedom but with an established goal. Typically through money.

So my question is: Do you believe the ending is what the visionary artists wanted? Can it have been corrupted or influenced by outside influences?

If, say, the ending was mandated to be a certain way. Influenced by factors that have nothing to do with with the wants or designs of the author is it actually Artistic Freedom?

If Artistic Freedom was perverted or subverted is it still Artistic Freedom? Just curious what people think.

I don't think we need to get all that deep on the subject.

I think of the Mass Effect series as an epic 3 game action-rpg campaign. Bioware can end the campaign however they feel but if they are going to impress their digital hatred upon me in the form of their ending to a 3 game campaign then I don't have to like it or accept it.

[Blind2Society]

Asnine112 wrote...

Bioware has a right to do to the ending whatever they want

We have a right to stop buying their products

Simple

This is true

[Greed1914]

The big problem is no matter how artistic a game, book, movie, whatever is, it still gets packaged and sold like any other good. The goal is to make money, as evidenced by publishers being large corporations dropping millions on games. And a customer (that is what we are) always has the right to make their opinions known. The company doesn't have to do anything about it, but they also can't use artistic freedom as a absolute shield.

[Grimmer88]

All this talk about art and artistic freedom is starting to get old. Art is not in mind when they start marketing the game to appeal to a wider audience. Art is not finding and creating character models that appeal to certain demographics, or making that looks "cool". Art is not about selling, selling and selling additional content because the legend will continue with DLC. This is a form of entertainment, yes its just that. And before someone says it inspires emotion, you what else can inspire emotion, tv commercials, print advertisement, etc. They inspire emotion so you can buy their product. ME3 is a consumer product that was produced and marketed as player choice, actions and consequences and in the final moment of the game...it suddenly becomes some high form of art that only game journalists can understand, because they are so deep and we are whiners, and do not understand art or artistic vision. ME3 was created to sell copies and to make money and they did. The problem with many game devs and the media in general is ego.

[JimJohnJim]

Thank you for smoking?

[LucidStrike]

I feel like ME3 is COMMISIONED art, which is diferent. What's more, only loving mothers are beyond criticism.

[sarelis]

I guess my question would be, is this really the best ending Bioware could come up with? Video games aren't like books, even though people keep comparing them. Books have editors, and authors can take months rewriting based on feedback. Video games are produced under tight deadlines that often mean things get left out or changed.
If Bioware, given three more months to work on the game, would not have changed a thing about the ending- if this was exactly their vision-- fine. I'll live with it.
But if it was the result of being rushed out the door, then I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for them to go back and offer something else. Video games are one of the few mediums where this is feasible, so why not? People who liked the original endings wouldn't have to download anything if they don't want it. And are they so controlling that if they don't use a new ending, they don't want anyone else to have it either?

[Umbrellamage]

Adamantium93 wrote...

Its not artistic freedom if you're just ripping off another game. In this case, Deus ex

Besides, I didn't pay for them to go bananas with the ending. If they want to do that on their own money, go ahead.

But they sold me the game promising that
1. My choices through the series would effect the ending
2. The end wouldn't leave me with more questions than it answered
3. I wouldn't have a choice between A, B, and C as the ultimate defining choice of the series.

So I paid for them to lie to me and make an attempt at art. And that's just bad business.

This

[elessarz]

I assume you are all familiar with Sherlock Holmes?

That's the danger of establishing such a trend, but then again, Bioware is a business as well as a producer of art.

That said, if people want or perceive, as does that ridiculous Gamespot article, the relationship between Bioware and their customers to be solely that of provider and consumer, then artistic integrity doesn't even enter into the equation because there is no art, there is only the product, which the consumer purchases or rejects, and that describes the extent of the relationship between Bioware - the business - and its fans. Because that is true, through our power as the consumer we can demand a better product, citing the reasons that have been so far cited.

But if the product must be art, it is shoddy work indeed. Perhaps Bioware would have more to gain than lose by revising their work.

Modifié par elessarz, 14 mars 2012 - 10:39 .

[Tsantilas]

Kitsune413 wrote...

Tsantilas wrote...

People throwing around the "Artistic Freedom" argument are using flawed logic. Mass Effect is not a piece of art. To make an analogy: It's like buying an artbook with 100 pages of beautiful artwork, except that many pages have been torn to shreds. You then proceed to complain to the publisher about the state of the book, demanding a proper version, only suddenly everyone starts yelling at you to deal with it because it's art, and you have no right to complain about it.

This analogy doesn't work because the product is not damaged. There are bugs in the game but the game is functional. You can play through and beat it. The ending is intentionally done. Its premeditated. Not accidental. I appreciate your emotion. I also appreciate your words.

I don't think analogies like this help because of the emotional state. Emotion is good, expression is good. But you feel wronged about the response that has been recieved and that makes this sensational.

I want to focus on whether or not the defense applies. If its a rational and true defense or if its a tactic being used impoperly.

More than that I want people to discover, or see, the words that will help them express themselves. You are all very intelligent. But emotionalism and sensationalism are running rampant. Claims from both sides are so outrageous that people are focusing on how outrageous those statements are and not the core issues.

I hope to see those statements become reasonable and true so that instead of arguing over how far fetched a statement is people will just have to deal with the truth of what has been said.

I'll admit I didn't really spend much time trying to think of the ultimate analogy and perhaps it doesn't apply that well, but my point still stands.  Video games are not works of art.  They are products.  If mass effect was intended to be put on display in a gallery, then people could argue that it is art.  It isn't.  It is an interractive medium.  Bioware advertised ME3 as the final conclusion to the trilogy.  We payed 60 bucks for a finished product, but general opinion is that this was falsly advertised since the cryptic tweets by bioware seem to point towards more to come that isn't in the actual game at the moment.  Anything other than a free patch that completes the game will just prove that.

[royceclemens]

Art is not divined from tea leaves, nor does it pass through a membrane from another dimension. It's something that is the product of hard work from normal, flawed individuals. And artists, much like politicians, janitors, porn stars and helicopter pilots need to be told when their work is thought to be sub par. And artists need to listen, if they want to stay artists for much longer.

Most artists are not lucky. They make one bad move and their audience drops and runs, never to return. But BioWare IS lucky, because not only are we telling them what's wrong, but the steps that need to be taken in order for them to get back in most of our good graces.

Without an audience, art does not exist. Period.

[Kitsune413]

Asnine112 wrote...

Bioware has a right to do to the ending whatever they want

We have a right to stop buying their products

Simple

As a consumer you have a right to do whatever you wish with your money. As a person you also have a right to feel however you want about the endings.

People here have let themselves be labeled as the 'entitlement' crowd. When they respond to statements about how they feel entitled even though they are arguing against it they're adopting the moniker. I think it would be even worse should they choose their own title.

But nobody should feel guilty or question their personal right to dislike the ending.

Nor should anybody feel guilty or question their right to ask for a different ending. A consumer asking a Corporation for another product is a Good thing for that corporation.

People are struggling to find their voice in this discourse. People are struggling to find the right words. When someone says what they want to say they quote it in as many forums as possible.

I'm not interested in the entitlement charge because honestly acknowledging, trying to fight it only gives those who are using it power. You shouldn't question your right to be upset or to ask for change.

But people do need to find the right words to defend themselves for or against the idea of artistic freedom.

[Grimmer88]

royceclemens wrote...

Art is not divined from tea leaves, nor does it pass through a membrane from another dimension. It's something that is the product of hard work from normal, flawed individuals. And artists, much like politicians, janitors, porn stars and helicopter pilots need to be told when their work is thought to be sub par. And artists need to listen, if they want to stay artists for much longer.

Most artists are not lucky. They make one bad move and their audience drops and runs, never to return. But BioWare IS lucky, because not only are we telling them what's wrong, but the steps that need to be taken in order for them to get back in most of our good graces.

Without an audience, art does not exist. Period.

I think thats the problem, they cannot handle being critqued by people.  Look at the game journalists and how they reacted to our reactions.  We pointed out in mass the glaring holes in the game and they closed their eyes and said "nope you're wrong, you're not seeing the true vision of the ending or that we missed the point."  Its not that deep and if they are striving for a deep ending, they failed.  

[JimJohnJim]

Don't you people see whats going on here... The media is taking you all for a spin down lobbyist lane... This was never about "artistic freedom" or "entitlement" or "disney endings". This is about us, the consumers, demanding (its our job as consumers to do so) a proper ending to what we see as a rushed product. If they do not listen to us, we will go to the competition, it is as simple as that. That's how business works. The media WANTS you to think this is an issue of "freedom" or "entitlement", so you will be sympathetic with the company. Do I like BioWare? You bet your behind I do, but if they fail to provide me with the product that I want, then I just take my money elsewhere when I'm looking for a story driven game of excellence.

[Stu_Shepard]

Any art that goes mainstream is motivated by financial gain in spite of the artists intentions. So yes, in spite of any honourable intentions a developer may have on a game it is completely feasable that this could be perverted in the pursuit of a greater financial reward. We've seen it with films which is why a director will later release a directors cut which the studio would not necesarilly allow them to release in cinemas. More often than not these are better than the theatrical release (but half the time that's because the theatrical release is awful).

[Sett101]

Just because we are willing to starve them doesn't make them artists.

[3Minotaur3]

ME3 is a Product (a Service, actually because you pay to have the right to use it), not an Art work...

They're using work of Art in it like Sound, Music, Pictures, Writers, etc...
That's why IMO people are confused about games being a work of art...