47 réponses à ce sujet

[HamishUK]

http://www.mcvuk.com...ing-saga/093131

[Zeratul20]

A slightly better article, with a slightly less deceptive title can be found here:
[url="Bioshock Creator "Sad over ME3's Ending Scandal"]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116427-BioShock-Creator-Sad-Over-ME3s-Ending-Scandal[/url]

Modifié par Zeratul20, 21 mars 2012 - 12:12 .

[Ronin1325]

He's sad about users wanting the product they paid for? I'm sorry he doesn't acknowledge that Bioware made piles of claims that weren't fulfilled, but marketed the game to us with those claims anyway.

[Robhuzz]

Why does everyone keep pulling out the art argument? Is 'Art' the same as 'Bad writing that makes no sense' these days? If so I'm starting to hate art...

[Talon2000uk]

I think Ken Levine should inform himself about what the fans are complaining about before he comments on this. I'm not complaining that I didn't like the ending. I'm complaining that the ending was poorly written, full of plot wholes and didn't represent either the choices we made over five years or the overall high standard of Biowares amazing video game series.

[BobbyDylan]

Art... TBH, games are closer to toys than they are to art. In fact, games that allow the player freedom to explore and discover tend to be more well received than those that force their story on you.

And quoting the ending to a book (a non-interactive medium) adds nothing to the argument, IMHO.

[Accism]

I think Levine has a confused idea about how art works. A huge part of art has always been about the conversation between the audience and the creator, about criticism and the audience engaging with a work and making it their own. The idea that art is something one person or organization has absolute control over and that creativity can only goes one way from creator to audience is absurd.

[Harorrd]

[insomniac13]

Ken Levine is the man! (Bioshock is my favorite game of all time!)

[Kilshrek]

The customer has no right to be displeased at the product they have received, is a somewhat lazy and cheap argument to use, especially as the artist depends on the business of the customer.

None of us would have a right to say anything if Bioware just did little snippets of ME and released it on Youtube for us to watch. Comment, sure, but we can't do more than that.

[Tonymac]

deleted

Modifié par Tonymac, 21 mars 2012 - 12:47 .

[Vincent Rosevalliant]

Accism wrote...

I think Levine has a confused idea about how art works. A huge part of art has always been about the conversation between the audience and the creator, about criticism and the audience engaging with a work and making it their own. The idea that art is something one person or organization has absolute control over and that creativity can only goes one way from creator to audience is absurd.

QFT

[CodeMyster]

Levine is full of sh*t, right now he's thinking, "Fu*k yeah, now Bioshock Infinite will be GOTY!!!"

[PaulSX]

I agree with him. changing the ending is a ridiculous idea because it will still be a fake ending. I think the best thing BioWare can do is to release an epilogue in verbal form to justify all the choices players make during all three games which will make the ending look better.

[aj2070]

The "this is art" argument is bunk. This is a consumer product that was created to be sold. A significant number of consumers feel the product does not live up to the expectations set by the company selling it. We are asking that the company simply deliver the product they promised.

[Mojenator12345]

Yes, BioWare has the "right" to make games that suck if they want. That's their artistic license. And their customers have the right to abandon them in droves. BW also has the possibility of doing something to make the situation better, if they so choose. Not sure why it should make Ken Levine sad that BW's faithful customers ask that BW do that, rather than just washing their hands of BW and its games.

[Oldbones2]

If he's so sad, when doesn't he do something about it? Like just tell us there will be-

You know what forget it.

He doesn't have the right to be sad. He made a product, his consumers are not satisfied. He got paid. His emotions are not even slightly relevant to the issue.

[DonYourAviators]

His opinion would hold water if the ending wasn't objectively bad. It felt like the production quality went subzero in the last ten minutes.

[Docmeff22]

Claiming something is art so you don't have to defend the inadequacy of the product is a cop-out. I'm sorry you don't like the product you paid a lot of money for, but it's ARRRTTTT, so screw you.

Art has to have value to the beholder, whether that is monetary, emotional or symbolic. If it has no value of any kind to people then it is not art.

If I took a blank canvas, took a dump on it and smeared it around, would you call that art? If no one like it or saw any symbolism in it, well, then it's just a stinky piece of canvas.

[turian councilor Knockout]

He's a **** moron he would be better of if he STFU.

[Zeratul20]

Accism wrote...

I think Levine has a confused idea about how art works. A huge part of art has always been about the conversation between the audience and the creator, about criticism and the audience engaging with a work and making it their own. The idea that art is something one person or organization has absolute control over and that creativity can only goes one way from creator to audience is absurd.

Hmm, I don't think I agree with you. The creator does have absolute control over the piece of art, in essence. The creator creates and delivers the piece of art "as is", whereas the audience is free to interpret the creation. It is only on this interpretative level that a form of dialogue can exist. (And even then, no real interaction with the creator him-/herself is necessary. The creation itself can be interpreted by the audience without involving the creator.)

[shadowreflexion]

Sorry to say but Mr. Levine is a misinformed idiot for using movies and books as support for his statements regarding changes in a medium. I don't attack people personally but I will attack his quotes. He said that authors and movie directors do not change the end product of their art and that just isn't true.

Movie directors often have screenings before their movies are released and if the group has a problem with the end result then changes will be made in order to grant satisfication to crowd. Creative control does not rest solely on the shoulders of those who direct or write. And speaking of Ms. Rowling, Arthur Weasley was supposed to die in the Harry Potter series and at the last moment due to the fans sharing an attachment to Mr. Weasley, she changed it to Fred Weasley dying instead.

ME3 is a good game but as I have stated before, the choice with how it ended wasn't a satisfying culmination from the journey that I began in 2007. People are going to remain upset and they have every right. I'm not upset at the development team, marketing team, or even the company as a whole. I'm disappointed in the team that agreed that this was in their best interest and not the people who supported them from day one to end a game on this note.

I can't support a lawsuit against the company or those who want to force the companies hand but I do support the passion that many share and the only thing I can ask from BioWare is "Please don't disregard those who supported you based on the crowd who as Casey Hudson once said are just jumping into the series to start it. Support those who enjoyed the series when it launched because without them, what amount of success would have been accomplished? 

[Docmeff22]

Zeratul20 wrote...

Accism wrote...

I think Levine has a confused idea about how art works. A huge part of art has always been about the conversation between the audience and the creator, about criticism and the audience engaging with a work and making it their own. The idea that art is something one person or organization has absolute control over and that creativity can only goes one way from creator to audience is absurd.

Hmm, I don't think I agree with you. The creator does have absolute control over the piece of art, in essence. The creator creates and delivers the piece of art "as is", whereas the audience is free to interpret the creation. It is only on this interpretative level that a form of dialogue can exist. (And even then, no real interaction with the creator him-/herself is necessary. The creation itself can be interpreted by the audience without involving the creator.)

You're assuming that "Art" and a product for consumers are one in the same.  They are not always.  Videogames are products first and CAN be art later.  Art by definition isn't something that is designed for the whole purpose of selling.  Art is often of monetary value because it invokes an emotional or symbolic response. 

The other argument is that the ending is art because it invokes a negative response and gets people talking about, so it did what was intended.  That is a fool's definition.  If you deliver a product that has such high quality until the very and, at which point you tear to shreds does not increase the artistic value of that product. 

Can videogames be art?  You bet, but just because someone creates it does not make it art by default.  Can you make cherry pie that tastes absolutely awful?  Sure, but will people eat it?  If it tastes bad is it art?  Just because you creat a great tasting cherry pie does that make it art?

Ken probably has not played Mass Effect 3.  His statements were general and he made the comment that the fans didn't get the "ending they wanted."  He is assuming the fans wanted Shephard to destroy the reapers, save humanity and be welcomed back on Earth in a Star Wars: A New Hope medal ceremony ending.