292 réponses à ce sujet

[RedShft]

hismastersvoice wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

Ken Levine being a pompous ****? Sir, I am shocked. I mean honestly, how narcissistic do you have to be to make a public announcement about something that has nothing to do with your company? He's just swinging his dick around to get attention.

Give him a break. He was answering a question, not making a statement.

If I read it right, the person who was asking he question was interrupted by the audience and Levine commented on the question without letting the questioner finish.

[Wildhide]

Lianaar wrote...

Lankist wrote...

Then why, precisely, has everything Bioware has ever said about their relationship with their audience been entirely contrary to what you're saying? The "art" argument is NOT Bioware's position, they have not confirmed it. It is the position of third-party commentators. Bioware's own words are completely contradictory to the argument.

Either you're wrong or you're saying Bioware is outright lying about how important they consider their fans to be.

I lean toward the more optimistic choice.

Please read, what I wrote. I am NOT BioWare. I express my views on what I hope they'll do and what I fear they'll do. I express my worry and excitement that this will influence the gameing industry as a whole. I repeatedly said, that I find it valid that marketing and outcome of the game might not match each other. I understand you want to call me wrong or liar, but please refrain from getting personal.

I hope BW will not change the ending, I even more hope they'll come up with a 3rd solution to change - not change. A solution that has not yet listed in the part of the forums I have read. But still, we are not authors of Mass Effect. We are players. We do not have the copy rights. We can not use it as we see fit. We can not lay emotional and legal claim to it. It was BioWare's work. We can be invested, but it was not our work, our intellectual decision, our money, our risk. Thus we are gamers, not game makers. I stick to this.

There is nothing stopping them from keeping the current nonsense and still adding in more than the single ending.  Like promised prior to release.  Furthermore, even if they do add DLC to fix the ending, no one who likes it has to buy it.

[SandTrout]

agathokakological wrote...

The moment that art becomes commissioned art is when the artists lose supreme artistic license over the product.

Damn skippy.

[chkchkchk]

TolaSrrup wrote...

The game was hyped by choice.  I even have one of the original print ads for the first game alluding to a completely opened end game where we shape the outcome.  And if we (as I did) try to play it as the warrior-saint, the ultimate boyscout, then we should have had the option of "rainbows, ponies and granola" for one of the ultimate endings.

Thanks for writing all that.  I'm totally down with "everybody dies" Shakespearian endings.  If there is a "rainbows" ending it doesn't take anything away from people like you who played as a "warrior-saint" (something I'd like to do eventually).  The nice thing about narrative choice in the final chapter of a series like this is that any number of endings are possible.  One doesn't have to invalidate the other.

[Tritium315]

Lianaar wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

This argument falls apart when one realizes that movies, which are considered art, almost always have pre-screenings exactly so **** like this doesn't happen. Bladerunner's original ending was changed precisely because test screenings didn't like it.

Well not really. The point of pre-screening is that potential maker of the movie know whether or not they'll have a return of their investment, so whether or not the movie will be financially rewarding for the makers.

Let's see a movie reference: Fightclub. It was a total economic failure in the US and the makers were kicked out from the company they worked for. However it was a major success in Europe and is considered one of the best movies made in a while. Should movies/games like that be made or not? 

The point of pre-screenings is to figure out how the audience will feel about the movie. By the time a movie is available to be test screened the money into developement has already been sunk, unless it fails colossally at test screenings (ie. the audience says everything about it is awful and there is no way to salvage it), it will go on to be released, whether in theaters or directly to dvd. Pre-screenings are used to make decisions about things such as endings, whether the audience is actually able to follow a disjointed plot, etc.

As for Fight Club, I loved the movie and would be thrilled to see more made like it. However, I can see where a major studio would be coming from if they choose not to finance something like that. Incidentally, movies (and games) with subject matter that may not be exactly mainstream make ideal Indie projects.

[RedShft]

Dockerr wrote...

If bioware came out, and stood by their convictions and said "no, we are artists, we made this like we wanted it and its not being changed" then I would respect that.

If the came out and said this, they would be fools. This would be a great way to lose many customers.

[QwertyMusicMan]

I fully agree with Levine, but may I point out if he had an input on ME3's ending it would probably be a lot better.

Any other ending, engineered by fans or not, will be better than our current one. It won't be perfect, but it's something.

[Versus Omnibus]

This reasoning only works if one views video games as art, which I don't. Until it becomes established that video games are in fact art ,outside of it simply being people's opinions, I'll accept this reasoning.

[katanakage]

BrotherWarth wrote...

One thing people saying "this is art, and what we got is the artist's vision" have to realize is that time and money play as large a factor in making games as artistic vision does. We have multiple sources saying the ending we got is not the ending Bioware intended to make when development began.
If your art can be so fundamentally altered to meet someone else's deadlines or guidelines then it isn't art at all. It's a product.

And therein lies the largest setback for games as art... because this seems to happen all to often anymore

[Sashimi_taco]

The problem is that the ending was not a result of good creativity, but of bad writing and being short on time. It was an ending of convenience not of talent or hard work.

[InsaneAzrael]

Lianaar wrote...

I hope BW will not change the ending, I even more hope they'll come up with a 3rd solution to change - not change. A solution that has not yet listed in the part of the forums I have read.

Such as the suggestion that the ending does not exist. I find the development of fan-based theories (c.f. Indoctrination theory) supplements the ending of the game. It gives an option to expand upon what is present and give the game an optimal ending option. It does not change the ending persay, people can choose not to get a DLC allowing for further climax.

The ending can be changed, or not changed. Another alternative is to be supplemented.

[Lianaar]

Wildhide wrote...

There is nothing stopping them from keeping the current nonsense and still adding in more than the single ending.  Like promised prior to release.  Furthermore, even if they do add DLC to fix the ending, no one who likes it has to buy it.

I guess somewhere in the answer-response set my point got lost. I don't actually care what the ending is. I am interested to see how video games will be positioned in the entertainment/art market and how far/direct end customers can/have the right to alter an already existing and final product.

I never made a stand on the ending.
I made a stand on video games not being comissioned by definition of comission.
I  made a stand of gamers not bein authors of me and me universe and BW having the sole copy right of that.
I also made a preference on game makers making games instead of gamers.
Everything else for me is open for debate and is a matter of perspective.

[FirstBlood XL]

EJ107 wrote...

agathokakological wrote...

The moment that art becomes commissioned art is when the artists lose supreme artistic license over the product.

Garrus and Tali being made into LI's

Tali being a squadmember is mass effect 3

The Mako being removed

Planet scanning being toned down

s/s LI's being added

Poll: What FemShep do you want?

Poll: Should we show Tali's face?

"Action" mode

IGN getting Jessica Chobot into the game


Let's be honest- Bioware have been letting anybody and everybody influence the game from the get go. And I think that everything except for the final two things on that list are good things that came from that.

True artists are willing to accept that what they want to do is not always best for the piece, and that others idea's can improve what they have made.

They can't pull out this argument now. 

LOL --- Good points against their one (silly) argument.

But lets side-step their argument for a moment (the only tactic I've seen by supporters of 'the other side' attempt)...

A) The ending, as is, is filled with MANY plot holes.  From disappearing/teleporting teammates, to Maurader Shields putting a bullet in you, after you had just been blown to smitherines by Harbinger, armor/shields destroyed -- yet you continue on,  to Shepard listening and taking the advice (demands) of his ultimate enemy as gospel... To  'waking up/breathing' in a pile of rubble after being Reaper-lasered, shot, and blown up.  Forgetting opinion, forgeting happy vs sad vs vague endings.... The current ending is POORLY WRITTEN, edited, and excuted, on a purely factual basis.

The 'entitled whining' of the fans --- Would the gaming industry be happy if we just sighed, shut off the console of choice, and said to ourselves "Well, that's what I get for caring about a video game trilogy... movies and novels only for me, from now on."?

I read a post a day or two ago that said something like this (apologies to the OP, this forum moves at FTL speed)

In the hotel business:

* If you do a good job and make the customer fairly happy, they may tell 10 people.

* If you mess up, anger the customer, and do nothing to solve the problem... the person may tell 20 people.

* If you mess up... BUT admit your mistake, and exceed the customer's expectations of service... than you have a customer for life and one who will tell everyone they know about their great experience.

C) Nobody is FORCING Bioware to do anything.  Nobody has taken hostages or stormed a Bioware office and made "demands".  We're simple making our voices heard, giving the company the OPTION of making us happy.  Kinda sliding into point "B" again --- Bioware has the OPTION of helping its most vocal fanbase.  The way I see it, as of now, BW has two choices it can make.  Each choice has its own response and repercussions (kinda like Mass Effect 1 and 2)  

Modifié par FirstBlood XL, 20 mars 2012 - 01:24 .

[Wowlock]

What's with the ''Art'' topic recently....

The ending was a poor excuse for that and it is a backdoor exit from the legit arguements we are making.

I said it again and again. Bioware do not sell ART ..they sell ENTERTAINMENT....and in that sense, we have every right to voice our displeasure with how the endings betray the Series ITSELF...

Do they think we actually hate Mass Effect and thats why we are taking the ending apart ? We LOVE this damn series so much that we feel and KNOW this ending is not WORTHY for a series this epic.

The series deserved better, players deserved better...HELL even DEVELOPERS deserved better...but somewhere along the road, I don't know where or how , someone with a questionable mind throw in the ''ART'' card into the mix that screwed everything up. Now we have to deal with this mess.

Personally if this is the route the companies gonna take in the future, I want none of it. They can open a ''video game Art museum'' for all I care. If they won't provide entertaining products and mess up enjoyment because of ''ART'' well they can take their art and I will take my money elsewhere...

[benj919]

"It's (our) art and we can do what we want with it" is a valid argument just up to the point were the artist takes pre-orders. When an artist advertises his/her piece of art to people under any promise, s/he becomes a hired artist after even the first pre-order. As hired artists they give up or limit their universal artistic autonomy in exchange for an assured compensation. At that point the exchange becomes an barter trade no matter what the commodities are and both sides are liable to fulfil their end.
Unfortunately it did not go this way with the (promised) endings.

[GoblinSapper]

Nu-Nu wrote...

JK Rowling wanted to kill off Harry Potter but she didn't because people begged her not to. That reference fail. Fans can influence an author's decision.

I'm sure her editor smacked some sense into her too.

[tommythetomcat]

SandTrout wrote...

agathokakological wrote...

The moment that art becomes commissioned art is when the artists lose supreme artistic license over the product.

Damn skippy.

This is really all that needs to be said in the debate.  You could argue that the first ME is technically art.  However after that it's out of their hands, of course they can still have a vision and if they want to alienate their fans they can, but seems a lot smarter just to give them what they want and the game itself deserves.

Modifié par tommythetomcat, 20 mars 2012 - 01:31 .

[Lavits75]

What's with saying Bioware wouldn't get any satisfaction? What about us? The people the product is INTENDED for. The people that have paid countless dollars to buy these products. The people that Bioware PROMISED an ending that would explain everything and save the universe. Do we not matter? Products aren't made so developers can feel all happy inside. They're made for consumers to either enjoy or to use to make life better. And if that product is faulty, it should be redone.

And comparing this to other forms of art doesn't make sense. I won't say video games aren't works of art because I belive they are. But they're nothing like a painting or a book. If you have a painting or book, the paint or ink is final. The reader or observer doesn't use his/her own moral choices to alter it. It is what it is.

If you want to make comparisons on other forms of art, let me make one of my own: music. Does the creator of the instrument get a say in how it is definately player? Or does the player develop their own way and play according to such? Is the player of the instrument any less of an artist than the creator? The same goes for a game. Depending on your choices, the game develops along a specific path. You decide from the options you are given. So yes, the creators decide, but so do you. You, as the player, have a right to do what you believe. And you, as the consumer, have the right to argue if you think you've been wronged.

[movieguyabw]

Artists are well within their rights to end a story whatever way they want. The audience is within their rights to not like it, and express this. The artist is then within their rights to change it, if they feel a change is necessary, and want to change it. However, if the audience doesn't like what they've created, they're well within their rights to not buy from the artist.

However, keep in mind, that Bioware has repeatedly stated that the fans are an active contributor to the world and story of Mass Effect. Casey Hudson has stated that there is no "canon" Shepard, and that players decide what type of character their Shepard is. Thus, implementing such a tragic, "canon" end to so many Shepards who weren't tragic heroes, but classic heroes, insures that a good amount of these "fan created" characters are forced into endings that don't suit their story or progression. Which can be seen as a form of bad writing. Nevermind the plotholes, the tropes, the circular logic, introduction of an important brand new character at the 11th hour (which shouldn't ever happen), and the abandonment of key themes, that already make the endings objectively bad. We're talking about introducing a canonized ending to a game without a canon protagonist. An ending that offers no closure to character arc, aside from "and now they're dead". And one that the majority of fans (see all polls relating to this) do not feel represent the character that *they* have created. Being 'active participants in the creation of the story', as Casey would describe them, they have a right to request a different conclusion.

And we aren't saying "We're forcing you to do this!" We're saying "Do this, or we won't buy from you again" - which though one might say the two statements are synonymous, it's our right as a consumer to not buy from them until the endings are fixed.

[mattynutz]

The difference is, Piccaso didn't promise his fans that their choices mattered. BW did. Then they broke that promise. Had BW said "We're gonna give you one ending!" instead of "We don't want to do an A, B, C sort of thing" and "16 different endings, now with smell-o vision!" then fewer people would be upset. Fewer people would have bothered with ME3 since choice is a main selling point for it, but fewer people would feel lied to and manipulated.

[MaskofSkin]

Games are a product, not art. They are made to make money for corporations and we are the customer. First rule of business: The customer is always right. Give us what we want.

[Elite Midget]

Games are a product, they aren't art. Not yet. Mass Effect 3's ending has set Games back by years for their horrid ending. If Bioware wanted art than they clearly failed in that regard.

[aliengmr1]

What the hell has happened? Did I go threw a wormhole and arrive in a different dimension? One where all art remains unaltered regardless of what anybody says. I went to art school in my dimension and was told over and over how my "artistic integrity" means precisely dick, when an audience pays to see it. Must be nice.

[CrasVox]

I am going to make myself very clear about all of this.

No one who charges money for the product can stand behind the veil of art with total impunity.

The very second you charge for said "art", it becomes a product. It is the dream for one to be able to charge for art, and maintain that original vision, but only a very very few can. No game developer that I know of falls into that category.

If the message Bioware tried to convey (and I would ask what that actually is, it is so contradictory and convoluted) was so important, that is just had to be told, then you don't do it in the vehicle of a $60 video game.

You want to make video games? You want to get paid? Then you do the best you can. You make something that is compelling, that is rich, and has meaning, and hope people respond. You don't want the criticism, you don't charge for it, but when you charge for it, when you ask people to pay you for that art, it is best seen as a binding contract.

Then when you try to CAPITALIZE on that art. You drum up the hype, you build anticipation, and you fail to deliver, then act like an artist and own up to it.

There is no one here that is trying to stifle art. No-one. But let us not exaggerate what we are talking about.

No video game is worth anything that hangs in the Louvre. This is a form of interactive entertainment. An expensive one at that. One that is a one way road. Meaning, I buy it, and if I am unsatisfied, I cannot return it. The best I can do it sell it at a loss, due to the stigma of used games, and the fact that the publisher themselves built in depreciation of my asset with the one use online pass.

Film, I would think most would agree, is a form of art. Most films produced by Hollywood are subject to public screening. They will throw out versions of the film to screenings and take the feed back so best to formulate the final cut of the movie. Because they realize the contract that exists here. Yes the Director is trying to tell a story, but he is also asking to get paid for telling it as well.

And for anyone to loose sight that this is a product, that the customer has a right to say he/she is disappointed in something they spent hard earned money on, then you are truly lost.

The consensus here is not that we do not have a happy ending. On the contrary. I myself would have been disappointed if a happy ending was easy to get, or the only available. The story led me to believe that Shepard had to die. The odds were so great, and while he survived impossible odds before, this was going to be an even bigger challenge.

I do not hate the endings because Shepard died. I hate the endings because they are not what I was told to expect when Bioware was using all their means to convince me to buy their product. I hate the ending because it is a hack job, it is cheap, half-heartedly put together, and it contradicts so many different things on so many different levels.

If the art of this story was so important, then it should have been made available gratis. But of course that is ridiculous, because no way could anyone consider the fictional story of Commander Shepard to be that important. No one would put the time and effort required to make this game out of the goodness of their own hearts because the story was just that good.

they made this game to make money. The story being good, compelling, and rich is a requisite for that success, and so we come to the point again:

the second you ask money for art, you are not doing it for love anymore, and you no longer have only yourself to answer to.

I am a paying customer in this regard. I enjoyed Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. I enjoyed the vast majority of Mass Effect 3, but I felt let down, betrayed, and a number of other things by the ending, so much so that I want to let them know about it, and that I would like it fixed. Because really, after trying their other products they have available, I see no reason to ever give them business again otherwise. And this seems like a fair thing for me to say.