292 réponses à ce sujet

[daguest]

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.

The main difference between a book and a RPG is the interaction of the reader/user. In a book, it's none. Like it or not, it's the author will, you just happen to read it. A RPG involve the gamer taking decisions, and the game reflect it, making "your own story" (even if thousands of people have the same).
I disagree on changing book stories, but it happened several time. Harry Potter, or Sherlock Holmes (he is killed, but the fan were so sad, and made such a fuss, Conan Doyle had to revived him). But, I think we have the right to intervene on RPG endings.

I quote wikipedia about the death of Sherlock Holmes and his come back :

Conan Doyle wrote the first set of stories over the course of a decade.
Wanting to devote more time to his historical novels, he killed off
Holmes in "The Final Problem," which appeared in print in 1893. After
resisting public pressure for eight years, the author wrote The Hound of the Baskervilles,
which appeared in 1901, implicitly setting it before Holmes's "death"
(some theorise that it actually took place after "The Return" but with
Watson planting clues to an earlier date).[50][51]
The public, while pleased with the story, was not satisfied with a
posthumous Holmes, and so Conan Doyle revived Holmes two years later.

Sherlock Holmes is still an awesome piece of work, and something we all know. And it would be shortened by many stories if people had stay silent.
I think the Sherlock Holmes death/revival is a good point against those disclaiming we shouldn't be involved in changing endings.

Modifié par daguest, 20 mars 2012 - 01:49 .

[nitefyre410]

Okay... really lets get this out in the open... Videos games are not like books and movies.. they are simple NOT. You can't judge the based on the same standards. What the hell if most of the game makers would stop running trying to satisfy this damn inferiority complex they have with critics and just make good, great, engaging games then they would start getting the Rep they deserve. They need to stop trying to live up to this damn Art standard. Instead thier constantly going. "Look at this, Look at this.. We can be artistic"

They need make the damn games, stories as best they can and let time do the rest. In other words its time for industry as whole to stop seeking some else approval on if games are art or not and grow up. That mentality is one of the reasons that this whole mess was started. Bioware was trying to get attention for being "Artsy" and instead of knocking the ball out of the park by telling great engaging Epic story of Heroes and Villain's, Triumphs and failures.. which would have stood the test of time. They got themselves in the this mess  trying to do something that did not need to be done.

Video game Developers need to stop seeking validation from the Art critics and the art crowd.

This inferiority complex the industry has needs to stop.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 20 mars 2012 - 01:53 .

[Zeroscape]

Two posts nailed it:

agathokakological wrote...

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

 

QwertyMusicMan wrote...

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.

What we have now feels rushed and of a different quality to the rest of the game. If Bioware officially say that they truly believe that their ending now is the artful conclusion they have been striving for, I would grudgingly accept that and deal with it. This, however, means that Bioware has had a critical disconnect in what players wanted from Mass Effect's final chapter. 

But the thing is that they have a chance to rework and/or expand the current ending to something 'better'. You have to call it like it is, this is commissioned art as the previous poster said. Bioware worked with a gameplay formula, looked at market research to determine what was important and listened to our feedback to figure out what to change for each following game so it will be popular.

We have had a hand in designing these games, however indirectly, since the first one came out. Bioware, like any developer, wants to marry success with their own creative wishes. The fact that the current outrage is so loud is due to an imbalance in that marriage. The cause is not important because they now know there's been a miscalculation on their part. What is important is how we'll move forward, which will determine how their reputation will change.

[Silvren555]

The most amusing aspect of this entire thing is, BioWare have the opportunity to go down in history as a game developer that sucked everyone so far into their game, that they deceived their entire fanbase with an indoctrinated semi-ending.
Whether or not they intended to, and whether or not they thought their own ending was awesome, they can at some point turn around and say, "Ha ha, got you, heres what happens after we indoctrinated you" and people would talk about BioWare and ME for many, many years to come. Not only that, it would turn almost all the bad press into great press and the amount of free advertising they would get out of it would be amazing.

[Midarc2nd]

If a game was structured as purely gameplay with linear and non interactive plot, then I'd acknowledge readily the assertions that the consumer, sorry player, should just accept the path of the story as is.

Given the collaborative nature of the storytelling that MassEffect not only championed, but eventually came to be an exemplar of, then I cannot agree.

You cannot bring someone into the circle, tell them their choices count, that the story being told relies on them, and then at the last moment pull this away.
That this kind of bait and switch will get such a reaction should not be a surprise.

While it is more complex when analysed, at the moment it feels as if we were asked to choose the colour of the galactic apocolypse, rather than view the end that was built upon our deeds.

[turian_rage]

If they decide ultimately not to make an ending, well then, at the very least they could just EXPLAIN what happened. Mass Effect used to be all about explanations and reasoning, til the last 5 minutes.

Hold the line, peeps.

[WildcardCharlie]

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.

[panamakira]

I want to respect their creative direction, specially because I do consider "some video games" art. I have a very high regard for creative freedom but without getting into a full argument about it, the product that Bioware has given us is a full interactive experience that very, very few companies can do. And that is giving the player a CHOICE. THIS, as I've said in my review of the game in other threads, is what I consider Bioware's true strength and where their ART comes from.

The ability to create an experience, a story and attachment to amazing characters, woven together with interactive gameplay to give the player's CHOICE in to which direction they wish to take the story.

You know what I think was the BIGGEST mistake in all of this. So let's say I agree with Bioware's creative freedom to do whatever they want with the universe. Fine it's their game. THEIR STORY.

BUT WHY, Oh why were they selling us the game EMPHASIZING on the fact that OUR CHOICES would take PRIORITY in the outcome of the ending. You can read anywhere in the forums, articles that site the devs and Casey themselves assuring fans about the variety of the endings and how our choices in the game would be important.

Then they pull a 180 and come with ONE ending with three variations? They straight up LIED to us about the content of the game. If they wanted to write whatever ending they wanted? FINE. But I bought the game thinking my choices matter because THEY SAID THEY WOULD.

Well they didn't matter at all and I'm stuck with the worst ending, which in fact happens to be the "best" of the three. If they wouldn't have straight up lied to us and would've come out and said "we have in mind only ONE possible outcome because the writers feel this is the only way the story should end, please understand this is the ONLY way the story can end". I would have an easier time accepting that VS telling our choices matter and whatever we collect throughout the game will influence our endings and then scrapping that and giving us what we got.

That is a LIE. And that's why I can't "respect" their creative freedom here when they were selling us a completely different game last week that what we got today.

They just abused all of their fans trust and they expect for us to forget about it and move on.

So we're most likely not getting any other endings. Fine. But at least feel is important they should know to stop lying to their fans and then expect them to be cool about it later.

That is just not cool man.

[bdiddy2012]

this is what i say. make an ending that makes sense so the fanbase doesnt come at you. i dont really cared that my character dies, its the end of a game. but sense it is an end of a game and trilogy then answers questions, give us closure, dont give us 1 ending 16 times with 3 different colors and say its 16 DIFFERENT endings. you make a game with an ending that makes sense then it should be fine dont touch it but when its an ending like ME3 then yes change it

[daigakuinsei]

Lianaar wrote...

daigakuinsei wrote...
No one's forcing Bioware to comply.  If they do, it's out of concern for their future sales.  Welcome to capitalism, buddy.

Capitalism is just a tad more complicated then that
If there is a secure customer group who will buy a given product, no matter what, and the income will cover cost and give a resonable profit, then a small enough customer base is good enough for the product to be born.
Should there be a way larger customer base, however it is not secure and there is a chance that the returns will not cover costs and a chance the profit will be ultra high, then it might be too risky to try to provide for that customer group.

That too is part of a mechanism. A recent examples is when state and customers wanted to force banks into giving certain loans to customers. It was argued that it is in the interest of the banks to give loans as that is how they make money and it will also benefit the customers. And the banks were cornered to such a level that they chose to actually close down business instead of complying with customers. And that still is capitalism. In the end customers, state and bank all lost. If less force was applied, then maybe a version would have been cooperated where everyone comes out pleased from the situation.

Your model is wrong, and I've worked with corporate finance models.  Basically, corporations want to maximize their NPV.  If EA determines that making a new ending will result in more income and goodwill than leaving ending as-is, they'd change it (assuming that there isn't a project with a higher NPV on the table).

[A Paperback Hero]

It's funny that he says the game wouldn't be art if it was affected by the community. Many of the greatest works of art in history are not the brainchild of the artist. Many many many in fact just about nearly all historic visual art from the 1500-1800s is commisioned work. I.E. a purchaser dictated what he wanted and the artist created it. I fail to see how a fan contrived ending would be any different than this.

The Sistine Chapel, The Roman Coliseum, The Last Supper. just to name a few of the greatest commissioned works

All great works of art that were what the commissioners wanted but the artist put their own spin on it. The ending for ME3 is our commission and our payment is the fanfare and support we give Bioware with buying their products.

Modifié par A Paperback Hero, 20 mars 2012 - 02:07 .

[eddieoctane]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Translation: "I'm ignoring the fact that if games are art, the players are both the patrons, who have a right to ask for changes, and cooperating artists who help the work evolve. I'm also ignoring the fact that even passive viewers of art can and should express dissatisfaction with the art produced if it is crap or otherwise unfinished. I'm ignoring all that, because I just want to make money and not be criticized if I put out crap."

I'm not as up to date on elitist-hipster-douche to english, but that sounds about right.

[nametry629]

agathokakological wrote...

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

That happened the day the writer was employed by Bioware.

[A Paperback Hero]

nametry629 wrote...

agathokakological wrote...

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

That happened the day the writer was employed by Bioware.

And as I said earlier. The Sistine Chapel, The Last Supper and The Roman Coliseum are all commissioned works of art. I don't see anyone clouting them as less than their worth because the artist didn't have 'supreme' license over it.

Infact there are many outside sources that will affect the outcome and development of a game that force alienation of the artists intentions. Deadlines, budget, board rooms, editorial changes, programming and/or engine limitations. The biggest being corporate control. ME3 is not a product of Bioware in the end it is a product of EA and EA is a public company. Investors are the ones who truly have the last say. In the end what I am getting at is just about every video game is commissioned work.

Modifié par A Paperback Hero, 20 mars 2012 - 02:27 .

[IXITiKiMoNIXI]

The endings need to come from Bioware, whether it comes from a cornucopia of ideas from across the fan base or not. I still have plenty of faith in Bioware their writing in this game up until and even throughout most of the last mission was incredible and far exceeded my expectations they can do it we just need to hold the line.

And just to give my two cents on this artistic license situation, if it's commissioned art it also becomes a product for the consumer. A consumer has every right to complain and want amends made it's how capitalism works.

Finally, Bioware I love you ; ) but I just want a new ending

[mpgeist]

Ken's just afraid of what would happen if people picked apart his plots.

[Monochrome Wench]

Ken is right BUT he is ignoring the financial realities. If the fans hate it, and they will refuse to buy further games from its developer then it is likely going to be in the best interest of the developers to fix the issues now.

Modifié par Monochrome Wench, 20 mars 2012 - 05:13 .

[Phoenix NL]

All I can say is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones Mr. Levine. To quote him:

"I underestimated, way underestimated, the impact the story was going to have on people," he said. "I didn't realize it would change people's perspective on what to expect from gameplay." Levine said that when writing a story, deep down he never really expect people to pay attention to it. "I didn't think they became that invested in what was going on," he said. In BioShock "you have this great mystery of your own identity and once it is solved the story is over. I think it was a miscalculation on my part."