292 réponses à ce sujet

[Lianaar]

katanakage wrote...

If Leonardo Da Vinci painted the background and body of the Mona Lisa, and then painted a smiley face were the head goes and punched a hole in the middle of body, would it still be considered art just because he's an artist?

Leonardo was commisioned to make that painting, but was doing it for over 4 years and guess what, the person comissioning it never laid hand on it. So I guess his opinion didn't matter to Da Vinci.

I think our problem stems from the Video Game as genre being rather new and having little tradition (compared to novels, theatre and paintings). We do not know exactly how to realte to it and what expectations are acceptable or not. Different people place video games in different sectors and thus validate claims in regards of altering the games differently. What we can securely claim is that presently video games is shaping its own position on cultural/entertaiment palette of our life.

Also note, that some novels will be just that, novels, written words. And some novels will be art. I guess the same is to be said about the games.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Zulmoka531 wrote...



This kinda hurt the artistic integrity defense for me. But that's just my perspective on it.

That, I think, is the best argument in our favor.

[chkchkchk]

P.S. Asking "IS THIS ART?" is a n00b mistake. Everything can be art. Whatever.

Obviously videogames are art. This isn't hard. Multimedia and interactive art gets shown in galleries all the time. There is no official definition of art. Calling something art makes it art. The Dadaists turned toilets into art. Warhol turned soup cans into art. Something can still be art even if you don't like it.

[Darknessfalls23]

This art argument is silly, Its the audience job to react, If the "artist" doesn't listen to criticism then they don't expect us to support them in future. Plus your talking about game that wants to provide DLC for two years, If they are asking what DLC would people buy, I say we clearly tell them "An Ending" that's all we ask.

[PeterG1]

I don't think Ken's statement is very fair. (and this is coming from someone who was emotionally rocked (the good kind) by the ending).

Video Games are absolutely art. But because they're deeply interactive and because they're designed by artists who legitimately care about their consumers, Ken's statement sounds a little mislead and, if I can be frank, not very well thought out.

I should clarify: the developers at Edmonton care about their consumers on a wholly emotional level--the money just comes, it's not about that to them, it's about the emotional connection. The guys at Redwood? Yea they might be a bit more interested in the $$ (and that's totally fine!). For Ken to say something like that, to me, means that he lacks his own connection with Irrational/2K Boston's consumers. But even that's silly I know that he too does! He too cares about his consumers, just as Bioware does. So I can't give him a ton of credence on that statement.

[MrFob]

Of course BioWare has the right to end their game as they see fit. I think that is not under dispute here. However, they also have the right to change it if they see fit. We are just trying to convince them that this is the way to go.
Ultimately, if we fail, there is not much we can do about it apart from not supporting that particular artist (a.k.a. company) anymore in the future.
Don't see how this guy's statement is relevant to the current situation.

[thinicer]

What Ken fails to address is that the Mass Effect games are based around choices. Things are not set in stone within the myriad of choices Bioware gives you. The more choices, the more rich the experience the game is. Romance or don't romance certain characters, save or kill others, spare the Rachni or don't, save the Council or don't, play as a female Commander Shepard, etc. There is flexibility in these games to shape the experience that you want.

The fans are not asking Bioware to change something that can't be done, like making the bad guys space faring panda bears instead of Reapers. They're asking for several, vastly different endings that are determined by your actions over the course of three games as well as an epilogue for each that ties up all the loose ends and provides closure for all the characters that survived.

I don't know if Ken watched that Youtube video that showed a side-by-side-by-side comparison between all three space magic color endings, but there is virtually no difference between them. I mean, even Bioshock had the luxury of treating the player to endings that were more varied than those in Mass Effect 3, and that game didn't have nearly the same degree of choice factors in it: save or harvest the little sisters. That's your choice.

Modifié par thinicer, 20 mars 2012 - 12:17 .

[curufinwe03]

suusuuu wrote...

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. 

Just remember how someone (IGN or kotaku?) compared the demand for a better ending of Mass Effect with the wish for nicer ending of Hamlet...

[Ianamus]

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. 

Modifié par EJ107, 20 mars 2012 - 12:17 .

[ValendianKnight]

I don't want the fans to write the ending for ME3. I want Bioware to write an ending worthy of the series. To me, it makes no sense that Bioware managed to get 99% of ME3 so damn well, and just drop the ball on the most crucial %1 of the whole series. They are no crap writters. They proved with ME3 itself, they still have it. It's why we're fans in the first place. But anyone can tell something went wrong with that ending, even people who like it. Even if you do, you have to admit it's not what they promised, and a better ending CAN be written by Bioware. I want it to be theirs. I just want it to be better than it is, an ending deserving of the series that Bioware so carefully created.

[CronoDragoon]

I don't think it's fair to expect these guys to say anything different. Ken Levine is interested in telling a very specific story in his game; of course he will believe endings should not be changed. It's also why Brent Knowles's comments make sense to us: he designed games based around choice, not telling a specific author's story. Therefore, his views are much more applicable, since that is precisely the type of game ME3 is (or is supposed to be).

[wotmaniac]

I am starting to think these guys don't 'get it' on purpose. Most of us do no want the ending replaced. We want an ending with more options, that makes sense, and gives PROPER closure.
Not Boom, Crash, ???

[Tritium315]

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.

[Lianaar]

Zing Freelancer wrote...

Nobody asking them to write our endings, just... write... something better?

Better is subjective. Currently altering the ends would upset many people. I can not claim how many, but probably quite a few. Some, who expect a certain ending and even with the change they won't recieve it. Some who want these ends and don't want those to be changed. At this point it is not possible to alter the endings and come out good from it.

The issue with compromise is, that all parties give up something and thus won't be happy. What is needed for everyone is to step outside of the boundaries of change ending - don't change ending and come up with something new, that is sufficient for all. I am sorry, I lack the talent and skill to do that. I hope someone at BW is capable of reaching it.

[thinicer]

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.

Good point.

[Chuvvy]

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.

Modifié par Slidell505, 20 mars 2012 - 12:20 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Lianaar wrote...

Zing Freelancer wrote...

Nobody asking them to write our endings, just... write... something better?

Better is subjective. Currently altering the ends would upset many people. I can not claim how many, but probably quite a few. Some, who expect a certain ending and even with the change they won't recieve it. Some who want these ends and don't want those to be changed. At this point it is not possible to alter the endings and come out good from it.

The issue with compromise is, that all parties give up something and thus won't be happy. What is needed for everyone is to step outside of the boundaries of change ending - don't change ending and come up with something new, that is sufficient for all. I am sorry, I lack the talent and skill to do that. I hope someone at BW is capable of reaching it.

I think expanding on the endings is the best option, since it allows Bioware to "keep" some aspect of their original vision while accepting that the vision did not play out as clear as they may have originally thought. Even amongst the people who like the endings, would they really be broken up if Bioware gave us greater detail instead of the same three colors of light? Would having the ability to debate the Catalyst's logic or inquire into its origins really cause problems?

[daigakuinsei]

Bioware is also in the business of making money. The criticism here is like the kind you can see for a great movie with a poorly written ending.

The difference being the level of personal investment in gameplay for a 3-game RPG epic versus 2 hours at the movies.

If moviegoers had to spend 40 hours watching a great movie with a crummy ending, they'd be out in public like we are.

Just because it's art doesn't mean you can't criticize it. That's why we have art critics.

[Lianaar]

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? 

[Hussain747715]

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. 

This we aren't trying to create a new ending we're allowing them the oppurinity to correct their mistakes as they see fit. All I ask is diversity between endings and meanful way in which our choices manifest.

[Sepharih]

chkchkchk wrote...

P.S. Asking "IS THIS ART?" is a n00b mistake. Everything can be art. Whatever.

Obviously videogames are art. This isn't hard. Multimedia and interactive art gets shown in galleries all the time. There is no official definition of art. Calling something art makes it art. The Dadaists turned toilets into art. Warhol turned soup cans into art. Something can still be art even if you don't like it.

Yes, but the question is...if it's art then is it really within the viewers/players right to demand the artist change it?  In my younger days I probably would have defended bioware and cited the shield of artistic vision....but as I've grown as an artist over the years I've come to realize something.

Art isn't created in a vacuum, and, perhaps more importanntly, art like this is a collaboration.  It may seem high and noble to demand that your art remain pure and keep your original intent...but my experience is that you grow as an artist by accepting, responding, and yes, often times INCORPORATING criticism into your work.  Sometimes, the screaming fanboi's are right.  Sometimes, you need to let go of your original intent to allow a better story.

[chkchkchk]

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

s/s LI's being added

These three things alone are enough reason to celebrate the influence of the fans.  Actually, Garrus alone is worth it.  Calibrations, baby.

[Panicomatic]

I don't think that they can get away with changing the ending. What they'll do is release dlc adding content to the game that will better explain the ending.

[Greed1914]

While I like Levine's games, there is a problem What he makes do not involve player choice anywhere near the level as what Bioware does. At no point has anyone said that they helped create the story in his games. It's always been his story, you just play it.

Bioware has said on numerous occasions that it's a collaboration between us and them. That it's as much our story as theirs. If that is true, then why not let them know that we are dissatisfied? What was the point of getting to help craft the narrative only to have it pulled away at the end?

[Lianaar]

daigakuinsei wrote...
Just because it's art doesn't mean you can't criticize it. That's why we have art critics.

That is beyond the point. We don't debate wether people can express opinions. We debate wether people criticised must comply with the content of criticism.