292 réponses à ce sujet

[Carnage752]

Wasn't ken on our side? Or did i misread it?

[Nykara]

Lianaar wrote...

Nykara wrote...
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?

Making games is a profession. There are natural born talents who can do it without knowing the ins and outs of a profession, but in most cases you must be aware of those skillsets that are needed. Just like people presume writing a successful book is easy, when they actually sit down to write it, they realise it merely appears to be easy and it has its own rules and principes that are worth following. It is something that can be studied. It is something that a general player is not aware of.

Making a game needs a perspective when you are generalising your customers for the main part and where you segment them in some elements. Finding the balance to appease the most people is an extremely difficult task.

Analogy (because I love them)., I have been trying to make a good muffin for ages. I never manage. I try to change this or that, but something is awlays off. While making muffins is easy, finding out what I dislike in my muffins is also easy, learning how to alter the recipe to make the muffin suit me and my friends i want to bake it for is not easy.

There's no reason why those profesionals shouldn't choose to make use of any creative ideas that they see fit. Doing so doesn't stop it from being art. All artists and story writters use outside sources and information gathering to complete their work.

[Esoretal]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

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.

I like to think that since this game became so deeply interactive, it's become a vision of both theirs and ours. We're both creators. This whole thing is setting a precedent in gaming in that respect.

If there is a message they'd like to give to us through the ending, maybe they should work on making it clearer, or present it in a way that doesn't instantly alienate their fans.

Modifié par Esoretal, 19 mars 2012 - 11:33 .

[LTKerr]

A good ending can be sad, tragic, bittersweet and still artistic because it's well written. A bad ending is a bad written one, even if it's happy and has unicorns jumping around. ME3 ending is a plothole itself.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

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 thought we just wanted the ending finished

[Amagoi]

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."

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.

First off, thanks to Starcloud and Nu-Nu for having perfect responses. I have littleelse to add, because they tackled all the points I could come up with. I love when an argument against Retake is dismantled within the first few replies. It's really restored my faith in my fellow fans.

As for Ken Levine, I have no idea what he's trying to say here. So.. if we get an ending that we want, that responds to our choices throughout the three games.. there's no way we'll be satisfied? I'm not sure he thought that one through all the way.

I had no idea Paul Barnett was still alive. Since WAR is doing so well and everything.

Modifié par Amagoi, 19 mars 2012 - 11:34 .

[anexanhume]

BULLETWASTER wrote...

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.

How is it many people's pick for GOTY?! It's only March and it hasn't been released yet!!!!

People do this all the time. That's why they have the most anticipated award category for games. It is essentially equal to "I think this game will be GOTY."

[idspisp0pd]

As others have said, this line of argument would make more sense if we were talking about a purely passive medium like movies or TV. But here, what people are complaining about is less about the actual plot and more about the lack of choices and the fact that the pre-release hype was misleading.

[Dire Wombat]

Levine's argument sounds reasonable at first glance... You wouldn't expect the author of a novel to re-write the ending of their book to fit fan consensus, would you? This "rights of the author" argument against wanting Bioware to change their story fails, I think, because of two important differences in medium.

1) Interactivity. A long-standing feature, perhaps the main selling point, of Bioware's games has been that they encourage the consumer to become an active participant in creating their version of the story. I think this complicates the idea of "ownership" of the work. There's something disingenuous about benefiting financially from an audience sold on the idea of cooperating with the authors to tell a story, and then insisting on unquestionable authorial control when you deliver something so enormously unacceptable to your fanbase. You shouldn't expect to have your cake and eat it too.

2) Malleability. Modern game development renders game stories immensely changeable; companies are constantly selling DLC that adds to or changes their stories. You don't see novelists putting out a book and, at the end, appending a pitch to purchase additional chapters, epilogues, or an altered cast of characters for added micropayments. That video games now do exactly this undermines the argument for holding their stories immutable as creative works. Again, if you contend that your story is malleable when you wish to profit from altering it, but hold it as sacrosanct when your audience demands changes, it's hard to give much weight to the argument.

[Lankist]

You can have your artistic vision or you can have my sixty dollars. Not both.

[Jim Darksworn]

I respect Ken, but he doesnt make role playing games. I would never ask him to change the end to one of his titles since they are a singuler story, then again he wouldnt let an ending like that go out.

[The Angry One]

Golferguy758 wrote...

Veginator wrote...

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.

You mean...like.... this!

*snip*

ME3's ending is more like this..

[Sepharih]

MassEffected555 wrote...
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. 

Based on current information, Bioware doesn't want to fix their ending because this is the ending they intended.

I fully support retakemasseffect and am holding the line, but this I admit is where I think we need to be undestanidng that bioware is in kind of a bad spot.  I don't think it's crazy for them to change the ending based on feedback as I would view it simply as accepting and responding to critiscism....but on some level the saying holds true that "you can't please everyone".  IE....they can't make everyone their own ending (but maybe they could at least satisfy some people).
In the end...it might be just be that this is where fanworks have to come in to pick up the pieces...but I'm still hoping that they might listen.

Modifié par Sepharih, 19 mars 2012 - 11:36 .

[Kushan101]

Mr Indivisible wrote...

I agree with one point. If they change the ending, there is a huge risk of it feeling slapped together and unsatisfying.

More then anything, I wish that Mack and Casey could admit they shat the bed. The ending is almost universally reviled, (80%) and that future creators take note.

I whole heartedly agree with you, although, to be totally honest: I'm quoting this for "shat the bed"

[Tietj]

It's a dated reference, but the original ending to the movie version of the musical "Little Shop of Horrors" ended--like the play--with the main characters getting eaten by the plant. It tested so poorly that they actually rewrote and reshot the entire ending to make the heroes win. And it worked. The question is why the original ending played so badly when in the stage version, everyone loved the dark humor of the ending. For most, it was a question of the medium. Something that works on stage may not translate all that well to the screen. Similarly, a gloomy and "bittersweet" ending that may have worked out ok in a book, or even another game with a darker tone overall (Shadow of the Colossus, Heavenly Sword) just doesn't fit the heroic, lighthearted (mostly) space opera that is Mass Effect. Changing the ending won't damage anyone's appreciation for the game just like nobody--not even theater nerds--faults Little Shop for altering the original vision.

[Stakis]

what a load of bullcrap, fans have been inlfuencing stuff for ages, Han solo was suppose to die , it was G lucas idea and even H Ford was in favor of that yet fans said no and he lived, and lucas in the end was all happy with the money he made out of merchandise,pissing fans is bad for business, this guys fail to realize that without us they wouldnt make a living.

[dointime85]

Even if you believe that the artists vision must never be changed (which is an extremely limited point of view and would mean that a lot of great stage plays would not exist in their current form since they were changed as a consequence of audience reactions):

Why shouldn't Bioware be able to say: the ending that came with the game was our vision, but due to popular demand, we add a completely optional, alternative ending to the game as a present to those fans who were dissatisfied for reasons which we understand well.

How would artistic expression be compromised in this scenario?

Modifié par dointime85, 19 mars 2012 - 11:36 .

[Foggle]

It's important to remember that BioShock had an absolutely terrible ending. If Levine were to condemn ME 3's ending, he'd also run the risk of admitting that his own game was heavily flawed in the same way.

[Golferguy758]

The Angry One wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

Veginator wrote...

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.

You mean...like.... this!

*snip*

ME3's ending is more like this..

I love you.

[LenabotSE]

The Angry One wrote...

Irrational Games? The makers of Bio"Let's ripoff Fallout thematically and add in lots of misogyny"Shock?

Because I care what anybody from that outfit says.

Ha!

In fairness, though, the misogyny mostly branches off from the time period in which BioShock was set.  Females play a major role in the System Shock games.  Especially the villain, who is arguably one of the most powerful badgirls ever.  Her apt description was "evil AI space-dominatrix."  An inspiration behind the creation of Glados, actually. Lovely character.  So much better than that Fontaine douche.

And since System Shock 2 is basically one of my most favorite-ist games ever, I can't find it in my heart to disagree with ferocity.  But I do disagree with him. 

System Shock 2 had an open ending, but it was actually done well because, even though it was effectively a "defeat" after the player's hard work, it totally went with the theme of "you cannot stop the goddess-like AI who wants to rip your spine out."

Modifié par LenabotSE, 19 mars 2012 - 11:44 .

[Meruvian]

cinderburster wrote...

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."

^ this
If it would be regarded as art, what would it mean for the artists integrity that they omit parts of their artistic vision from the endproduct beacuse of deadlines enforced by EA?
And just because something is art does not mean it is beyond criticism.

Modifié par Meruvian, 19 mars 2012 - 11:37 .

[UnbornLeviathan]

 They should be allowed to end the game AS ADVERTISED.

Ending it in a completely misleading manner despite months upon months of advertising to the opposite is just...bad practice and should not be tolerated. 

[Erszebeth]

I think I used way to much money on mass effect. I don't think I'll spend more on it.

[Faded-Myth]

That argument would work if Mass Effect 3's ending wasn't hastily written and poorly implemented. It was a rush job, plain and simple.

I, as much as anyone, agree that games are a form of art. But it's art aimed at a consumer base and should reflect every aspect of what is advertised, or promised. It's a compromise that both sides have to deal with. You can't put out a game that's tauted to contain certain elements, but winds up missing them and expect the community to not be happy.

Mass Effect 3 isn't hanging for free in a museum in Paris. It's marketing and sold on store shelves. You should get what you paid for, and if you don't, consumers are allowed to complain. 

Modifié par Faded-Myth, 19 mars 2012 - 11:38 .

[CronoDragoon]

dointime85 wrote...

Even if you believe that the artists vision must never be changed (which is an extremely limited point of view and would mean that a lot of great stage plays would not exist in their current form since they were changed as a consequence of audience reactions):

Why shouldn't Bioware be able to say: the ending that came with the game was our vision, but due to popular demand, we add a completely optional, alternative ending to the game as a present to those fans who were dissatisfied for reasons which we understand well.

How would artistic expression be compromised in this scenario?