210 réponses à ce sujet

[rhyddhau]

Products are items created to generate profit, and that rely on sales and so are at the mercy of the consumer; products have to both please and satisfy the consumer in order to be successful.

Art is a poorly-defined concept, but one that usually designates a construct whose primary purpose is to generate a reaction (be it emotional or intellectual) from the viewer. "Good" art doesn't have to be appealing, it just has to elicit a response from individuals that they subjectively define as beneficial. "Good" art also generally doesn't arise from the primary purpose of being sold as successfully as possible, but rather from self-expression and unyielding vision.

Video games are rarely art because the intent behind most video games is to generate profit. With a few notable exceptions, they're usually products created by businesses for profit, and ME3 is no different. When people stop buying your video games because they don't like the content, you've failed at your business' purpose. ME3 is a flawed product that ~90% of consumers say isn't what they wanted, so the logical thing for the producer to do is to alter the product. It's not art, because its purpose isn't to simply evoke a response from those who view it, and whose success can't be measured in how pleasing it is to the majority; its purpose is to make money. It can't say whatever it chooses to without fear of repercussions in the form of diminished sales and damaged corporate reputation.

If BioWare continually fails in making sucessful products, it won't be a starving artist striving to fulfill themselves through the creation of art that isn't bringing in revenue: EA will close it's doors as a failed subsidiary of its business.

Modifié par rhyddhau, 21 mars 2012 - 08:59 .

[teknoarcanist]

From another thread, but reposting because it's about as eloquently as I'm ever going to be able to state my thoughts on this:

----------------------------------------------------------------

I'm right with you that the endings are basically "broken" and need "fixed". I felt the same way when I finished them.

It's just that in the last few weeks, I've seen the basic concensus go from "Games are truly another medium of art, and of the various companies I like, Bioware understands that best" to "Games are just a product, 'artistic integrity' is bull****, they sold me a broken product, I demand a structural repair to this product," etc etc. It's making me sad. Yes, they ****ed up, and yes, their claims of artistic integrity are a little silly when they've been retroactively selling new characters and events into their stories for years, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I don't WANT to spend so long justifying why my broken product needs fixed and its artistic content doesn't matter, and then come out the other end of the spectrum and realize I'm saying "games are entertainment products" or "games are toys" like old people have been saying for years. I don't WANT to be stuck thinking of my games as artless consumer entertainment products and nothing more. Do YOU? It'd be undoing everything positive that the last ten years of games-aspiring-to-be-art and "games-as-art" discourse have gained us.

I recognize that my disappointment with ME3 is closer to when I finish a Stephen King novel and realize it sucked, than the feeling when I buy a vaccuum and it doesn't work properly. ME3's failure as a work of art is more important than its failure as an entertainment product. I want our discourse to bear that in mind.

I guess what I'm saying is,

I don't want us to be so eager to fix this work of art that we all love that we demean all games to the level of "just products." That seems tragically masochistic.

Modifié par teknoarcanist, 21 mars 2012 - 08:58 .

[izmirtheastarach]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

If you think the ending choice was made by Walters or Hudson or the lead designer the you don't know what you are talking about. It was a decision made up the highest chain in Bioware and possibly EA.

This has been publicly confirmed by members of the writing team. And I'm not talking about the fake post that went up today. We were told this almost two weeks ago. It's also confirmed by all of the inside info that Bioware gave to Geoff Keighly.

I don't feel much like arguing with you about it. The info is there if you want to read it. If not, that's your choice.

Lugaidster wrote...

BTW, your post makes little sense...

Hooray!

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 21 mars 2012 - 09:00 .

[KaMai19]

Sentox6 wrote...

KaMai19 wrote...
It's not ludicrous. Musicians have to deal with record labels. Writers have to deal with NY publishing houses. Video game developers have to deal with producers. There's always been a push and pull between artists and the people who turn art into greenbacks, but it's a balance. Discarding the intellectual rights of the creator completely - that's what's ludicrous...or at least WAY too simplistic. You really want Hollywood producers to be able to change a movie every time they think it will make more money? You want the studio to be able to tell Christopher Nolan they're adding a hot vampire chick to Dark Knight Rises because it tested well with a sample audience?

You misunderstand. My point is that "artistic integrity" should not be a viable defence in a buyer-seller relationship. Seller says he will provide the buyer with A in exchange for an agreed sum of money, then seller provides B and says "I'm not changing it because it would violate my artistic integrity". No.

Don't bother bringing publishers into this. They have no place in this discussion. All I can presume is that you want to use their typically negative connotations in the gaming industry to try and advantage yourself by painting the people unhappy with the game's ending as supporting their processes.

Stop it with these allegations that BioWare "has" to do something, and that we're trying to force them to renege on their vision. We want them to provide us with what they said they would provide. They don't have to. I don't ever have to give them another cent either.

I didn't misunderstand. I get your point. I'm arguing that it's more complicated than that - that when the product is a piece of art, it's more complicated than "seller says he will provide A etc" because the artist is not the seller. That's why I brought the producer in. Because they're the sellers and they absolutely have a place in this discussion because they're the ones who are going to respond if there's an overwhelming consumer reaction that threatens their future profits selling more of the developers games. 

Where I 100% agree with you is the last paragraph. My arguments are about why I think the fact that these developers spent years making Mass Effect gives them the right to say "no" if they don't want to change the ending. That's what this thread is about. But I would never deny your right to boycott future products based on your dissatisfaction. 

TL;DR - The creators of a work have the right to change it or not as they see fit; but I completely agree you have the right to petition them to change it and not support their work in the future if they don't.

[k8ee]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

k8ee wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Oh so the people who hate the endings feel the ones who liked them should be spat on with this DLC?

DLC is optional. Why would they force it on anyone?

Because God forbid people would like more closure even if it they like the endings as they are right now eh?

Sure go ahead. That I like the endings doesn't mean I don't have problems with them, big ones at that.

You do not ****ing justify DLC that would change the endings saying it's optional.

They are so proud of their endings, I highly doubt they would do away with them all together. I think you're getting your panties in a bunch over nothing as we have NO information at this point. So sit down and take a deep breath.

[KaMai19]

rhyddhau wrote...

Products are items created to generate profit, and that rely on sales and so are at the mercy of the consumer; products have to both please and satisfy the consumer in order to be successful.

Art is a poorly-defined concept, but one that usually designates a construct whose primary purpose is to generate a reaction (be it emotional or intellectual) from the viewer. "Good" art doesn't have to be appealing, it just has to elicit a response from individuals that they subjectively define as beneficial. "Good" art also generally doesn't arise from the primary purpose of being sold as successfully as possible, but rather from self-expression and unyielding vision.

Video games are rarely art because the intent behind most video games is to generate profit. With a few notable exceptions, they're usually products created by businesses for profit, and ME3 is no different. When people stop buying your video games because they don't like the content, you've failed at your business' purpose. ME3 is a flawed product that ~90% of consumers say isn't what they wanted, so the logical thing for the producer to do is to alter the product. It's not art, because its purpose isn't to simply evoke a response from those who view it, and whose success can't be measured in how pleasing it is to the majority; its purpose is to make money. It can't say whatever it chooses to without fear of repercussions in the form of diminished sales and damaged corporate reputation.

If BioWare continually fails in making sucessful products, it won't be a starving artist striving to fulfill themselves through the creation of art that isn't bringing in revenue: EA will close it's doors as a failed subsidiary of its business.

You really don't think the creators of Mass Effect weren't aiming to illicit emotional and intellectual reactions from the users? Clearly they did. And if they hadn't succeeded fantastically throughout ME1, 2, and most of ME3, no one would care that the endings were awful. Whether ME3 is high art, low art, pop culture, a mix or whatever is certainly debatable. But by your own definitions, it is art to some extent. 

Your argument seems to completely ignore how art is frequently marketed as a product, and how this complicates the situation. Film, music, books...Shakespeare had to market his plays. Dickens was the Stephen King of his time. There's no way this is that black and white.

[Narsilsword]

It's ironic that the "artistic integrity" is being used to defend an ending that destroys the integrity of the series.

[izmirtheastarach]

Narsilsword wrote...

It's ironic that the "artistic integrity" is being used to defend an ending that destroys the integrity of the series.

That's a succint statement that goes along with what I'm saying. It doesn't respect the artistic integrity of the previous two games.

[rhyddhau]

Also, for those saying that Mass Effect has been art: BioWare has continually caved to user requests and demands in order to make the product reflect what consumers want as closely as possible. That they should then stick to their principles with regards to the endings against overwhelming criticism as "artistic license" is, within this context, completely asinine and nonsensical.

Was pandering to the Talimancers an example of uncompromising "artistic license" or an example of altering a product to make it more popular with their consumers?

[teknoarcanist]

I don't disagree with anything you guys have said. I just feel like we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That ever-present question "are games art" is being answered, BY GAMERS, with a resounding, "No. They're just products."

And that's a sad state of affairs.

[TheRisenStar]

I don't mind them calling it art. But something being "art" in and of itself is not a virtue. There is such a thing as bad art and failed art.

The problem is that postmodernism has influenced our culture to a point where no standards can be applied to anything, especially avenues of expression. That's all this defense amounts to - a defense mechanism to insulate you from any criticism, constructive or not.

And I say that as someone who does graphic design.

[Rune-Chan]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Melchiah109 wrote...

It's a normal PR tactic. Poke the people complaining until they finally rage and you can then write their arguments off.

How were our arguments getting written off?  Just because they didn't explain to us, who know already, what our issues are with the ending?

They conceded they made a mistake without declaring that they did with PR talk.  Until they make the official announcement, hopefully in 2 weeks, we will continue to be given the PR responses.

They haven't though, read what they said.

They refer to us like we are children who can't let go of the story, not fans who are upset at having been lied to.

[Costin_Razvan]

This has been publicly confirmed by members of the writing team. And I'm not talking about the fake post that went up today. We were told this almost two weeks ago. It's also confirmed by all of the inside info that Bioware gave to Geoff Keighly.

I don't feel much like arguing with you about it. The info is there if you want to read it. If not, that's your choice.

Show this info then. My point was that the choice with regards to the ending was not made by a single person, Walters does answer to the Lead Designer then Hudson.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 mars 2012 - 09:11 .

[teknoarcanist]

TheRisenStar wrote...

I don't mind them calling it art. But something being "art" in and of itself is not a virtue. There is such a thing as bad art and failed art.

The problem is that postmodernism has influenced our culture to a point where no standards can be applied to anything, especially avenues of expression. That's all this defense amounts to - a defense mechanism to insulate you from any criticism, constructive or not.

And I say that as someone who does graphic design.

I agree.  To my mind, ME3's failure AS ART is vastly more important than its failure as an entertainment product.  And I worry about the effect all this "games are just products" stuff is going to have on the discourse, going forward.

Modifié par teknoarcanist, 21 mars 2012 - 09:11 .

[izmirtheastarach]

teknoarcanist wrote...

I don't disagree with anything you guys have said. I just feel like we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That ever-present question "are games art" is being answered, BY GAMERS, with a resounding, "No. They're just products."

And that's a sad state of affairs.

I guess my issue is that we are being told by the world at large that there is no other way. If I grant that ME3 is a work of art, apparently that removes any right I have to express my dissatispaction with it. And if that is how things work, then I guess I'll have to keep thinking of them as products. There are plenty of art games, but games made my massive companies to sell to the masses are a different thing.

[teknoarcanist]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

teknoarcanist wrote...

I don't disagree with anything you guys have said. I just feel like we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That ever-present question "are games art" is being answered, BY GAMERS, with a resounding, "No. They're just products."

And that's a sad state of affairs.

I guess my issue is that we are being told by the world at large that there is no other way. If I grant that ME3 is a work of art, apparently that removes any right I have to express my dissatispaction with it. And if that is how things work, then I guess I'll have to keep thinking of them as products.

Well put.

[rhyddhau]

teknoarcanist wrote...

I don't disagree with anything you guys have said. I just feel like we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That ever-present question "are games art" is being answered, BY GAMERS, with a resounding, "No. They're just products."

And that's a sad state of affairs.

If you're just now realizing the extremely sad but absolute fact that most video games (including Mass Effect) have unequivocally been products and not art, I have some rather artistic snake oil to sell you.

[Vhalkyrie]

Defending the ending as "art" is an odd tact to take, since the ending uses a plot device that literary writers try to avoid.

[izmirtheastarach]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

This has been publicly confirmed by members of the writing team. And I'm not talking about the fake post that went up today. We were told this almost two weeks ago. It's also confirmed by all of the inside info that Bioware gave to Geoff Keighly.

I don't feel much like arguing with you about it. The info is there if you want to read it. If not, that's your choice.

Show this info then. My point was that the choice with regards to the ending was not made by a single person, Walters does answer to the Lead Designer then Hudson.

https://twitter.com/...386782042324992

Just for a random google search, there's this. All I'm saying is that he was the writer. The Final Days info is copywrited so it can't really be posted here. It mostly indicates that those two men you named are the responsible parties.

However, I'm not saying that no one approved the man's work, so I don't think you and I have an argument there. So let's not invent one. Your point is correct.

[ThatGuy39]

superwampa wrote...

The Angry One wrote...



Take a lesson from Bethesda and admit when you're wrong, BioWare. The game is the artistic integrity you must preserve, not this slapdash failure of an ending.

Can someone enlighten me on what Bethesda did? 

 
 
There was a minor outcry over Fallout 3's ending, because the character dies. But the gripe then was that you could not continue playing the game after resolving the primary quests, unlike other Bethesda games like Oblivion and Morrowwind. Other than that minor issue, the game was fine. The ending made sense, and they gave the player closure with a series of cutscenes based on decisions you made throughout the game. So Bethesda, after getting numerous complaints about the end, released the Broken Steel DLC, which allowed you to keep playing after the main story was completed. But that was the gripe that the fans had, not that it didn't make sense, or that it was a slap in the face, like ME 3's ending, but that you couldn't keep playing in an open world game. 

[teknoarcanist]

rhyddhau wrote...

teknoarcanist wrote...

I don't disagree with anything you guys have said. I just feel like we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That ever-present question "are games art" is being answered, BY GAMERS, with a resounding, "No. They're just products."

And that's a sad state of affairs.

If you're just now realizing the extremely sad but absolute fact that most video games (including Mass Effect) have unequivocally been products and not art, I have some rather artistic snake oil to sell you.

Yes yes, look at how trendy and jaded you are.  Hip to the modern world.  Good for you.  Thanks for the lesson, teach; golly willakers, guess I better wise up to this big ol' world!

<_<

Modifié par teknoarcanist, 21 mars 2012 - 09:22 .

[KingKhan03]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

This entire thread is just nonsense.

Oh look the white knights have arrived. Hail brave heroes, set to defend BioWare no matter what.
Art can be nonsensical you say? This is not a damn Picasso, this is a videogame, a 3rd game in a trilogy that has never been nonsensical. It utterly violates it's "artistic integrity" to be nonsensical in the last 10 minutes.
What say you now? 

In your opinion.

Assuming Direct Control.

[rhyddhau]

teknoarcanist wrote...

rhyddhau wrote...

teknoarcanist wrote...

I don't disagree with anything you guys have said. I just feel like we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That ever-present question "are games art" is being answered, BY GAMERS, with a resounding, "No. They're just products."

And that's a sad state of affairs.

If you're just now realizing the extremely sad but absolute fact that most video games (including Mass Effect) have unequivocally been products and not art, I have some rather artistic snake oil to sell you.

Yes yes, look at how trendy and jaded you are.  Hip to the modern world.  Good for you.  Thanks for the lesson, teach; golly willakers, guess I better wise up to this big ol' world!

<_<

You're welcome.

Modifié par rhyddhau, 21 mars 2012 - 09:29 .