292 réponses à ce sujet

[tjmax]

*sorry bit of a rant*

1) A role playing game is not art.

It is many pieces of art put together to form interactive entertainment. A product to be sold. The fact that it is interactive means the players have a role in how the story is played out and no two stories are exactly alike. This was the premise of the game on its creation and the expectations of its fans and stood true for the first 2 games.

2) This is not a movie.

A movie that has a singular story that follows a singular path to a singular ending. Actors are the role players in movies. They star in movies have contribute by playing the parts of said movie. They sometimes have direct influence to change the direction of the story from their own visions. In fact there are many movies that have alternate endings and of course directors cuts.

If you consider it art or not, its still a consumer product and those consumers have expectations based on past products, advertisement, interviews and reviews.

If those expectations are not met there is a feeling of being ripped off. People generally do not like being ripped off.

3) As we know reviews are based off off other peoples opinions.

Movie critics put their reputation on the line every time they review a movie and if they are way off base, people stop listening.

"Mega website Gaming critics" don't care what the target audience thinks about their reviews. They look down on the people they are there to pass information to and have no remorse to passing false good ratings or omitting key issues with what they are reviewing. I am willing to gamble that many of the so called reviewers only play a sample portion of the games and have no clue as to what the game or the ending is really about.

[suusuuu]

why does EVERYONE who is against changing the ending always compare an INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING GAME with books and movies over which you don't have ANY INFLUENCE and you're just a viewer, a bystander. This is beyond my understanding and just shows how little thought is put into their opinion and into their understanding of the media they're talking about. 

Modifié par suusuuu, 19 mars 2012 - 11:25 .

[anexanhume]

Some people don't seem to realize who Levine (and Irrational Games) is. He's behind the first Bioshock game (which was hailed as having a fantastic story) and the forthcoming Bioshock Infinite, which is already many people's pick to win GOTY this year. So, while appeal to authority does not an argument make, this guy does know how to craft a story in a video game.

Modifié par anexanhume, 19 mars 2012 - 11:25 .

[Veginator]

If games are art then the ending to ME3 was like drawing a duckface on the Mona Lisa.

An atrocity.  It needs changed for the sake of the art.

[Su13perfitz]

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.

QFT. Also I don't buy the premise games are only "art" they are also sport. Sports change to meet the demands of players and/or fans.

[teknoarcanist]

JK Rowling DID change her original ending of the series though, after the realization that the fan reaction would be horrible, and it would do disservice to the series artistically.

And frankly, the fact that there's a "continued patronage" angle to be taken into account, it would be more like if she'd ended the sixth book with a violent gang-rape. People would have protested it, demanded it be changed, and refused to buy her next book.

[Zebra3]

Sherlock Holmes came back after people complained enough.

[AlexXIV]

It's not art, it is business. One of the doctors said so himself. They are looking more at the business side. Maybe Bioware should figure out what they want. Because they can't have both. There is a basic conflict between art and business. Unlike with AI and organic intelligence as the 'artists' from Bioware want to make us believe.

[Esoretal]

Of course the ending will be 'true." A collaborative effort is just as valid.

Modifié par Esoretal, 19 mars 2012 - 11:25 .

[Nykara]

MassEffected555 wrote...

anexanhume wrote...

http://www.theverge....-ken-levine-sad

Game makers, not game players, should retain control over the games
they make and how they end, a panel of developers said during a weekend
talk at the Smithsonian to celebrate the new exhibit, "The Art of Video
Games."
"If computer games are art than I fully endorse the author of the
artwork to have a statement about what they believe should happen," said
Paul Barnett, senior creative director at BioWare-Mythic. "Just as J.K.
Rowling can end her books and say that is the end of Harry Potter. I
don't think she should be forced to make another one.
The comment came at the end of a nearly hour-long discussion about the future of video games which took place in front of a live audience at the Smithsonian American Art Museum last week.
Following the discussion, audience members were given the opportunity to ask questions. A man named Sam asked:
"What do you think of the whole idea where community has influence on
making game story like for Paul with BioWare ...," he asked, referring
to the "current fiasco going on right now with the Mass Effect ending."
Some gamers are upset over what they believe was an unsatisfying
ending to the Mass Effect trilogy, a series that promised gamers an
ending that was in part shaped by the choices they made over the course
of playing the three titles.
Barnett's response was met with loud applause that overwhelmed Sam's response.
When the applause died down Ken Levine, founder of Irrational Games,
added that he wanted to address the question as well because, Levine
said, "I think this is an important moment."
"I think if those people got what they wanted and (BioWare) wrote
their ending they would be very disappointed in the emotional feeling
they got because ... they didn't really create it," he said. "I think
this whole thing is making me a little bit sad because I don't think
anyone would get what they wanted if that happened."

So what does everyone think? Will the ending not be 'true' if it is engineered by the fans? If so, how is that different than the feedback loop Bioware used to write subsequent games, such as including Tali and Garrus as romance options?

This is what's confusing me. Are WE trying to make a new ending or are we trying to allow Bioware to fix their ending?

I really don't want to be involved if WE are trying to make the ending. 

Why not?

There are a LOT of creative minds in these forums. Even if they do not know how to program an actual game that doesn't make their ideas any less creative. How is that not art?

[Lianaar]

While I do not argue that a company can alter the product based on feedback, I much prefer if they take the feedback and incorporate it in their future work, and leave the already published one intact and alone.

The quote pretty much pointed out where the road goes if we step on it:
forcing a company to make a product they don't want to make.
Consider this: you would have been happier if ME3 was not made at all?
I am sure most people wouldn't question the right of BW never to make ME3 at all.
So then why does BW not have the right to do a ME3 they want?

I personally really like what the quotation says. Those are the very considerations that jumped to my mind too. (I still am not taking stand on the ending itself. I am more interested in the question how a vocal part - be it majority or minority - of customers can affect how video (or browser or mmo) games are made. Yes, these are very important moments and I think the future of the video gaming industry is shaped. I presume some companies will jump in to make games that go with general success recipes, but I also hope some companies will stick to their own ideas. I believe strongly, that being able to stick to your ideas despite the odds is necessary to be able to brave new things. Without new things and without taking risks, games get pretty old rather soon. Risks at times don't pay well, at times, they do good. But without them, games go stale.

[Jaze55]

anexanhume wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

anexanhume wrote...

http://www.theverge....-ken-levine-sad

Game makers, not game players, should retain control over the games
they make and how they end, a panel of developers said during a weekend
talk at the Smithsonian to celebrate the new exhibit, "The Art of Video
Games."
"If computer games are art than I fully endorse the author of the
artwork to have a statement about what they believe should happen," said
Paul Barnett, senior creative director at BioWare-Mythic. "Just as J.K.
Rowling can end her books and say that is the end of Harry Potter. I
don't think she should be forced to make another one.
The comment came at the end of a nearly hour-long discussion about the future of video games which took place in front of a live audience at the Smithsonian American Art Museum last week.
Following the discussion, audience members were given the opportunity to ask questions. A man named Sam asked:
"What do you think of the whole idea where community has influence on
making game story like for Paul with BioWare ...," he asked, referring
to the "current fiasco going on right now with the Mass Effect ending."
Some gamers are upset over what they believe was an unsatisfying
ending to the Mass Effect trilogy, a series that promised gamers an
ending that was in part shaped by the choices they made over the course
of playing the three titles.
Barnett's response was met with loud applause that overwhelmed Sam's response.
When the applause died down Ken Levine, founder of Irrational Games,
added that he wanted to address the question as well because, Levine
said, "I think this is an important moment."
"I think if those people got what they wanted and (BioWare) wrote
their ending they would be very disappointed in the emotional feeling
they got because ... they didn't really create it," he said. "I think
this whole thing is making me a little bit sad because I don't think
anyone would get what they wanted if that happened."

So what does everyone think? Will the ending not be 'true' if it is engineered by the fans? If so, how is that different than the feedback loop Bioware used to write subsequent games, such as including Tali and Garrus as romance options?

This is what's confusing me. Are WE trying to make a new ending or are we trying to allow Bioware to fix their ending?

I really don't want to be involved if WE are trying to make the ending. 

I think some people are going into excruciating detail about exactly what they want to happen, so some people believe that is our end.

Yeah well I want nothing to do with telling BW how to fix the ending. I want BW to fix the ending themselves.
That's my issue witht he Indoc theory, there have been polls asking if we want to use it, its been tweeted to BW, its on the FB page its everywhere. Of course people are looking at us in a negative light, it looks like we are trying to TELL BW what to do. 

**** just google Inoctrination and all you see if the theory. It's literally all over googles front page.

Frankly this is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth and the more I think about it. I want nothing more for TBME to succeed but not if we are tryingn to tell BW what to do with the ending.

[Mystical_Gaming]

The games irrational makes =/= RPG choice making games like bioware makes.

I'm getting tired of this art excuse for games.Games are interactive and the players change the game as they play with it. I still see no valid reason why an extra ending couldn't be added. The great ideas are there and so are the resources ...

[Baronesa]

It is funny that people talk about it as if it was something new... Fallout 3 already changed/fixed the ending.

And Irrational... too bad there is no Freedom Force 3 on the horizon...

[Jaze55]

Nykara wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

anexanhume wrote...

http://www.theverge....-ken-levine-sad

Game makers, not game players, should retain control over the games
they make and how they end, a panel of developers said during a weekend
talk at the Smithsonian to celebrate the new exhibit, "The Art of Video
Games."
"If computer games are art than I fully endorse the author of the
artwork to have a statement about what they believe should happen," said
Paul Barnett, senior creative director at BioWare-Mythic. "Just as J.K.
Rowling can end her books and say that is the end of Harry Potter. I
don't think she should be forced to make another one.
The comment came at the end of a nearly hour-long discussion about the future of video games which took place in front of a live audience at the Smithsonian American Art Museum last week.
Following the discussion, audience members were given the opportunity to ask questions. A man named Sam asked:
"What do you think of the whole idea where community has influence on
making game story like for Paul with BioWare ...," he asked, referring
to the "current fiasco going on right now with the Mass Effect ending."
Some gamers are upset over what they believe was an unsatisfying
ending to the Mass Effect trilogy, a series that promised gamers an
ending that was in part shaped by the choices they made over the course
of playing the three titles.
Barnett's response was met with loud applause that overwhelmed Sam's response.
When the applause died down Ken Levine, founder of Irrational Games,
added that he wanted to address the question as well because, Levine
said, "I think this is an important moment."
"I think if those people got what they wanted and (BioWare) wrote
their ending they would be very disappointed in the emotional feeling
they got because ... they didn't really create it," he said. "I think
this whole thing is making me a little bit sad because I don't think
anyone would get what they wanted if that happened."

So what does everyone think? Will the ending not be 'true' if it is engineered by the fans? If so, how is that different than the feedback loop Bioware used to write subsequent games, such as including Tali and Garrus as romance options?

This is what's confusing me. Are WE trying to make a new ending or are we trying to allow Bioware to fix their ending?

I really don't want to be involved if WE are trying to make the ending. 

Why not?

There are a LOT of creative minds in these forums. Even if they do not know how to program an actual game that doesn't make their ideas any less creative. How is that not art?

Then they can go make their own game company and publish a game?

[suusuuu]

anexanhume wrote...

Some people don't seem to realize who Levine (and Irrational Games) is. He's behind the first Bioshock game (which was hailed as having a fantastic story) and the forthcoming Bioshock Infinite, which is already many people's pick to win GOTY this year. So, while appeal to authority does not an argument make, this guy does know how to craft a story in a video game.

Are you serious? GOTY? What does it matter? Bioshock is an utterly linear game, a very different experience than what the Mass Effect series was always advertised for. 

Modifié par suusuuu, 19 mars 2012 - 11:27 .

[BULLETWASTER]

Video games are an art form and a business. You can't balance both. If you want to be true to your art your sales are going to drop. If you want good sales you are going to have to alter your art. Bioware can either stay true to their vision and lose our business or they can change it and get our business. They have to choose what's more important to them.

Also I'm sure some artists can make their art exactly how they want it and make millions. Most artists however have to make changes to appeal to customers.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

If games are a product meant to be fed to the hungry masses, then yes, change the ending.

If games are art, designed to capture a vision of the creator or the creators, then no, no change.

[Wyld Star]

That's... sort of a predictable response from Ken Levine. I don't think any artist wants to feel that they are beholden to rewrite something just because their fans feel one way or another about what they've produced.

And that's a valid opinion to have. But in this case, when ~15 minutes of gameplay and story are being so violently rejected by the dedicated fanbase that it may threaten the IP... it may just be time to take a long hard look at it, and see if it measures up. <hint: it probably doesn't>

[whydoyouwanttoknow]

I want them to justify the false advertising.

Why would I ever trust another game they make to be what it is advertised as being?

[Blackymir]

The bottom line here is they are acting as if this was the original plan and it was not. The first Mass Effect was their so called "Art" as the only input was from the creators and writers. Once Mass Effect 2 hits you have now gained a fan base and by letting them express their opinions and wanting them to "help shape the universe they play in" this becomes their slogan. You have now decided that you the writers...AND THE FANS/PLAYERS are going to shape the series from now (post mass effect 1 ) to current.

The writers and Hudson himself have talked about the changes since the original game and how fan input and their own changes have effected the story and universe we now know. So the argument to me does not fly. If you want to make something and call it your own "Art" don't ask the fans for feedback, make it your way. Since you asked for fan feedback however well...you get what you ask for.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

I respect Ken Levine and think his ideas regarding Bioshock Infinite are brilliant, but pretty much disagree with everything he says here.

[ShadowXOR]

 Honestly System Shock 2 is one of my favorite games ever (which he made) but this is BS.

Yes, I agree, BioWare should be able to make whatever ending they want.

However what he doesn't address is that the ending makes no sense in the context of the game, not even counting personal likes or dislikes the ending is just sloppily created and contradicts the universe/themes of all three games.

It's not about not getting what we want, it's about them fixing what's downright broken.

Squadmates teleporting to the Normandy, star child saying shep will die in all endings when he doesn't, mass relays destroying the entire galaxy in an "uplifting" ending, all the promises Casey made that downright contradicted what we got, etc.

This is a chance for them to make things right.  Guess what, BioWare can't make their art if us, the fans, don't give them money.  Therefor we cannot be ignored.

[Esoretal]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Yeah well I want nothing to do with telling BW how to fix the ending. I want BW to fix the ending themselves.
That's my issue witht he Indoc theory, there have been polls asking if we want to use it, its been tweeted to BW, its on the FB page its everywhere. Of course people are looking at us in a negative light, it looks like we are trying to TELL BW what to do. 

**** just google Inoctrination and all you see if the theory. It's literally all over googles front page.

Frankly this is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth and the more I think about it. I want nothing more for TBME to succeed but not if we are tryingn to tell BW what to do with the ending.

They are asking for our input, and people are giving them input. Hopefully with the understanding that it will be taken with a grain of salt, because no matter what we do, the production of it is still in their court.

Modifié par Esoretal, 19 mars 2012 - 11:29 .

[Pexxithan]

A creator can come up with any artistic release when they realize that true art is made to express a desire of the creator. Look at many of the "true" artistic pieces in the past. Most of the truly great pieces were made, not for profit (starving artist is starving). It's an expression of the creator and artistic license merits them to produce their piece the way they see fit. As soon as you expect money for your artistic endeavors, you are no longer given artistic freedom. You are now pandering to the ability to sell pieces as a product, and thus are at the demands of those you hope to sell your product.

Granted, there are many instances were a commissioned artistic piece qualifies as artistic expression, those times are generally extremely broad on what was expected (the Sistine Chapel, for example) or so memorable that they cast an artistic light on what generally was not expected to contain artistic merit in the first place (buildings such as the Empire State Building).