47 réponses à ce sujet

[jds1bio]

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.)

Agreed.  Do you converse with Beyonce about her latest songs or album?  After listening, do you campaign to have a song or two rewritten or re-arranged because the album was marketed as "exciting" but you didn't feel excited?

Assigning a value to "art" is also a function of time.  Was there a huge dialogue between Mozart and the rest of the world music community during his lifetime?  No, that dialogue took place amongst ourselves for years and years afterwards, and in fact that dialogue is still ongoing.

I do not think Levine is confused in the least.

[dorktainian]

sorry this aint a piece of art its a blummin piece of supposedly complete software that people have paid for expecting it to be complete, when it most deffo is not.

[_symphony]

the little problem here is that the ending doesn't have any art put in it.

[Zeratul20]

Docmeff22 wrote...

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.

1. A very valid point. Consumers can, and usually will, influence the end product. However, this can also be said about movies. (Yes, different medium, not interactive, etc.)
Anyway, I merely wished to indicate that I didn't agree with Accism's definition of art as a whole.
2 and 3. I have to admit, I have yet to finish the game myself, so I did not intend to make a statement regarding the actual ending. (The "horrible pie" metaphor is an excellent one, however.)

Modifié par Zeratul20, 21 mars 2012 - 02:56 .

[Catastrophy]

DonYourAviators wrote...

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.

Ask yourself why. Look at this:

[static noise from crappy recording]
Subsidiary Company Rep.:
"Right, as you can see, we're about to finish the main storyline and should commence with the grand finale in a coupla days. I have rounded up the artists and (insert name here) came up with this great idea ..."

Big gaming combine overseer:
"Wait, wait! So you're basically telling me the game is finished?"

Subsidiary Company Rep.:
"Well, not quite, you see, we all worked for this ending and all the audience has been awaiting the big moment of resolution for years now. We're about to create a classic piece of artwork and..."

Big gaming combine overseer:
"Yea, right, right. Heard that already. But gameplaywise this thing is through?"

Subsidiary Company Rep.:
"We're stable and most of the quest and story elements are there.  Look, it's essential we deliver..."

Big gaming combine overseer:
"Wow, wow. Easy now, we decide what's essential! If it wasn't for us the whole crappy lil project here would have gon' bust years ago! Now, it was YOU who took OUR money and told us you could do something cool and we are still waiting to see it pays off because of the outrageous amounts of cash you keep burning away.
Now, we cut that fancy stuff you talkin' about and deliver this piece AHEAD! I say. Do you know how many games our competitors have lined up? Make this thing go gold ASAP!"

Subsidiary Company Rep.:
"But the finale!!! People will be upset..."

Big gaming combine overseer:
"The hell with their being upset! This buncha fanboys will only find out at the end of the game, wont they? Now get back to work and it's DOUBLE crunch time for all the crew because you all really suck with lagging behind schedule of finishing the MP part. YOU KNOW THIS WAS AN ESSENTIAL PART, didn't you? Hey look, in the contract it says all your souls belong to us unless you comply with this milestone."

Subsidiary Company Rep.: "Holy Lord...."
[static noise]

[CptData]

Ronin1325 wrote...

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.

Pretty much this.

We players and fans of the series simply want a rewarding finale. The current endings are not rewarding, not a bit, because:

- the endings feel separated from the rest of the game

- the endings are too similar to call them "diverse". Regardless of what the player did in the game, s/he always end with the same three decisions and only EMS changes some details.

- the endings basically don't act as a closure

- we still don't know about the fate of the Galaxy, the Normandy (and crew), Shepard and the LI in certain endings.

...

In short: the endings are not rewarding at all. The fandom needs to create own (headcanon) endings and interpretations of the current endings (hallucination/dream/indoctrination or all together) so the game feels complete.

Regardless of what BW staff may think here, even if they believe the endings are perfect - the fandom disagrees. It's not just 10 or 15% of the fandom dislike the endings - it's a whooping majority of >80% !
Although no one says BW has to change the endings to please the fandom, they should at least try to understand WHY people hate the current endings.

I believe BW already began to realize why we, the fans, have issues with the endings and create our own ideas and interpretations. There is a chance they might improve the endings, change some of its parts, even accept our hallucination/indoctrination theory. No one says BW devs have to do that - we just show them a way how to include their own endings and improve them with what the fandom wants.

[MacAttack]

Who cares about the break down of art or if the game is art. Bottom line is the ending of ME3 is a load of crap.

[CptData]

suntzuxi wrote...

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.

As I said, BW simply can keep the endings.

The game just shouldn't stop with "Normandy screwed" and Shepard's breathing scene. Instead of, the Normandy-escape needs to be removed, Shepard gets up and finishes the job. Basically, the current endings should be considered as hallucination - Shepard's inner fight to defeat indoctrination - so the -real- ending didn't happen yet.

Once the player has done that very last part - best: no decision, just a final fight to reach a button Shepard needs to hit - the Reapers are gone, either destroyed or retreating and depending on EMS and decisions throughout the series you'll receive a more or less happy ending. In best case, all races are still there, Shepard survives and has his/her LI, friends and the Normandy still intact, in worst case, most parts of the galaxy are destroyed, some races are at brink of extinction and Shepard and/or the LI and the crew died.

I doubt that's going to happen since I simply can't believe BW uses the fandom's favorite interpretation "hallucination/indoctrination" for the endings - although BW used exactly THIS plot before removing most of its content.

[Catastrophy]

MacAttack wrote...

Who cares about the break down of art or if the game is art. Bottom line is the ending of ME3 is a load of crap.

The whole 'art debate' is just an abstract construction. If the audience doesn't like what it sees, it will usually word its rejection. By means of thrown vegetables, booing or raging in the forums.
I remember livid discussions among friends after watching a movie or playing through a computer game.

[Chromie]

I never lliked Bioshock.

[FemmeShep]

Ken Levine doesn't understand why fans are upset and is commenting w/ a basic understanding of the situation.

[CELL55]

Mass Effect 3 can certainly be called art, but it is not just art. It is entertainment. It is a product. If you can't sell that product, then the only 'art' you'll be making from then on out is arts and crafts made from the cheapest items in a convenience store.
Also, you shouldn't have to lie about the endings in order to sell it. ("You'l get a definitive, golden ending", "It won't be choices just like A, B, and C", "There is no space magic") <-- Remember those quotes?

[The_Duke75]

Art...

If I read that as reply to the useless endings one more time I'm going to barf over my N7 CE and sell it on ebay. That's art as well.

[BatmanPWNS]

His too busy thinking about all the GOTY he will win from ME3's ending fail.

[The_Butcher13]

that was snarky of me, i take it back

Modifié par The_Butcher13, 21 mars 2012 - 04:57 .

[KaMai19]

I was at the Smithsonian that day, and I have to say that these aritcles don't convey the spirit of Ken Levine's conversation with Paul Barnett (from BW/Mythic). It had nothing to do with whether or not the endings were good or bad. And it wasn't even exactly that Levine was depressed by the idea of the mob wrestling control of an intellectual work from the hands of its creators.

He was just skeptical that any good could possibly come of the whole mess; he was worried that no matter what BW gives fans, they won't be happy because it will be an artificial reflection of the fan's desires rather than a true experience. That is, it would be little better than the fans making up their own ending, which (pardon the crude metaphor) is the difference between pleasuring yourself and being intimate with another person.

Someone asked a question and Levine responded. He wasn't expressing a strong opinion about what should or should not be done, he was just saying, "This is definitely a big deal. I don't think it's going to turn out well for anyone."

But about the art thing:

The_Duke75 wrote...

Art...

If I read that as reply to the useless endings one more time I'm going to barf over my N7 CE and sell it on ebay. That's art as well.

I hate to feed all these trolls, but even as someone who strongly dislikes the ending, I have to say this...the art defense DOES legitimately complicate the issue. Regardless of whether it's "high art" or "low art" or whatever, the fact remains that hundreds of people put their hearts and souls into creating this experience about love, hope, politics, intolerance, etc etc. This came from their brains, and you don't create something like this if you don't legitimately love what you're doing. To say the creators of an experience like Mass Effect don't have any right to control the trajectory of their labors is outright ridiculous. Clearly you either don't understand that these games are made by ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS or you've never invested yourself CREATING something interesting in your life. 

That being said, control doesn't rest ENTIRELY in the devs hands. Like I said, it's complicated. There's the very interesting argument that the branching narrative structure means the user has a major role in creating the experience and that entitles them to some degree of artistic input. There's the financial reality of the producer trying to sell copies. Anyway, I've said enough. No one's going to give anything that's not "CHANGE THE ENDINGS" any consideration anyway v_v

[Namevah]

shadowreflexion wrote...
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.

So calling him a "misinformed idiot" is... what?

[shadowreflexion]

Dry County wrote...

shadowreflexion wrote...
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.

So calling him a "misinformed idiot" is... what?

It's about misinformation. Basically attacking what he's saying rather than attacking him personally. He is a misinformed idiot for not using a better analogy. Mediums are constantly changing even after a product has been finished. But he uses his statements in a way to try to back up what he interprets to correct. So in my opinion, he is an idiot for displaying absolute ignorance to a crowd of people without telling that same crowd the truth about certain processes involved in the creative process of a medium.

[Namevah]

Still sounds like you're personally attacking him...

[Promethean 47]

Has Ken Levine played the game and seen the ending? I really don't think the fans are looking for a 'tonal change' to the ending. They're looking for something that makes sense and actually explains what happened.

As is, we're left to guess that: (1) the largest fleet ever is stranded in the sol system, (2) the mass relays are destroyed presumably leaving countless colony worlds stranded/dying, (3) why/how space magic could turn all life/synth life into one somehow, (4) why and how your crew got off earth, onto the normandy, and felt the need to flee the most important space battle in the history of the galaxy...all to flee an explosion which wouldn't harm them (it only (1) controls the reapers, (2) destroys the reapers, or (3) converts all life....we are left to guess that maybe Joker wanted to save EDI in 1 of said endings...but why flee in the other two?).  Nevermind how superficial and unsatisfying the conversation with the space child is...and how out-of-character Shepard acts during that entire sequence.

Anyway, we can all go on and on about this...but people who dismiss this as just a 'art should be left as art' argument are missing the point. The fans are trying to improve the art. The 'games as art' argument really ignores the commercial nature of the medium anyways.

Modifié par Promethean 47, 21 mars 2012 - 06:49 .

[Texhnolyze101]

Still don't know who he is and still don't care.

[Raizo]

Let him be sad. The ME3 ending issue doesn't really effect him or anyone else in the Gaming Industry. The main reason why alot of us having been giving Bioware such a hard time is because the ME franchise was marketed to us on the strength of it's branching narrative and how we get choose what Shepard's story plays out. Casey Hudson also promised us closure at the end of ME3 and there was none ( there is closure to the Genophage story and to the Quarian/Geth war but there is no closure for anything else ). To make matter worse most of us have an emotional investment to the Me Universe and it's characters that goes back all the way ME1, 100's of hours have been spent in the ME Uinverse, maybe even 1000's of hours if you did mulitple playthoughs of ME1 and ME2. We desereved better.

Ken Levine is telling a linear story in his Bioshock games, he never promised anyone any control of the narrative of his games. He can do whatever he wants at the story and not have any obligation to compromise his vision.