210 réponses à ce sujet

[Qutayba]

I'm with most of you guys, but let's be fair. When fans demanded the Arthur Conan Doyle bring back Sherlock Holmes, he did it, and wrote one of the best Holmes stories (Hound of the Baskervilles). But they let him do it in his own way.

We're within our rights to ask for a better ending, but to try and "force" them to do it kind of violates the creative process. Artists change their work all the time, but they do it their way. Patrons who micromanage too much end up with inferior products. Give them a chance to make it right, and judge by the results.

[izmirtheastarach]

^ Sounds good. I'm not asking Bioware to let us write the game. In the end, they will be responsible for whatever we get.

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

[Vhalkyrie]

Qutayba wrote...

I'm with most of you guys, but let's be fair. When fans demanded the Arthur Conan Doyle bring back Sherlock Holmes, he did it, and wrote one of the best Holmes stories (Hound of the Baskervilles). But they let him do it in his own way.

We're within our rights to ask for a better ending, but to try and "force" them to do it kind of violates the creative process. Artists change their work all the time, but they do it their way. Patrons who micromanage too much end up with inferior products. Give them a chance to make it right, and judge by the results.

I never wanted to write the ending.  I just want them to come up with something other than "2001: A Space Odyssey".

[teknoarcanist]

rhyddhau wrote...

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.

My point is, it's a false dichotomy.  They're art AND products, as is ALMOST ALL ART.

And all I see here is gamers shooting themselves in the foot, going "No, games are JUST products!  They're products!  My product is broken, I want it fixed!  They're just toys!  It's supposed to entertain me, it doesn't WORK, fix it!"

And what it makes me worry about is the effect this is going to have on the industry, going down the line.  Are games art?  Well, now we know what GAMERS think of that question: big hell no.  Games are JUST entertainment products.

And that's bull****.

ME3 is absolutely a work of art.  It's just a bad one. 

WHY it's a bad work of art -- a bad work of writing, a bad work of game design, a bad work of interactive storytelling, etc -- is a more important and productive avenue of discussion, to my mind, than why it's a failure as something so paltry and sterile as a goddamn consumer product.  I don't **** ING CARE that it failed to redeem my dollar with a proper cost-value redemption or whatever: I care that it told a bad story.

Modifié par teknoarcanist, 21 mars 2012 - 09:27 .

[Costin_Razvan]

OK right back at ya.

How about we get rid of the bull**** "God Child" that comes out of nowhere. Add in a villan we actually give a damn about like Harbinger, and give us a decent boss fight to make it worth while. Then give a decent ending that actually takes your decisions from all 3 games and EMS into account, and shows us everything we did made a difference. You can even have your wonderful little Sheppard funeral. Why wouldn't that be better?

We do not need a goddamn boss fight, that was the best part of the ending, that they did not feel the ****ing need for a idiotic boss fight that has no sense to it.

[izmirtheastarach]

^ Hey, you and I agree again. How pleasing. Boss battles are a overused trope, and they do not need to be shoehorned into everything.

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 21 mars 2012 - 09:26 .

[Vhalkyrie]

The ending is so full of plotholes, that the fans were able to come up with an ending that remained true to the lore. The evidence is so compelling, that I still wonder if indoctrination is the direction they intended, but a director somewhere forced them to change it.

[aj2070]

I feel it is top-cover for "I can sell you crap and if you complain, you are obviously an unsophisticated rube who doesn't get it."

[Action Bawstard]

This pretty much is what I feel about it

http://actionbawstar...dream-integrity

[rhyddhau]

teknoarcanist wrote...

My point is, it's a false dichotomy.  They're art AND products, as is ALMOST ALL ART.

And
all I see here is gamers shooting themselves in the foot, going "No,
they're products!  They're products!  My product is broken, I want it
fixed!  They're just toys!  It's supposed to entertain me, it doesn't,
fix it!"

ME3 is absolutely a work of art.  It's just a ****ty
one.  WHY it's a ****ty work of art -- a ****ty work of writing, a
****ty work of game design, etc -- is a more important and productive
avenue of discussion than why it's a failure as something so paltry and
sterile as an entertainment product.  I don't GIVE A **** that it failed
to redeem my dollar with a proper cost-value redemption: I care that it
told a bad story.

I can respect your take. I suppose that I completely agree: even supposing that it IS a work of art, I think it's poor art in that it a) fails in what it set out to do, I don't care for a crucial part of it, and c) it's rejected by most people experiencing it as an inferior work. To me, that's worse than not trying to make it art at all.

Modifié par rhyddhau, 21 mars 2012 - 09:31 .

[izmirtheastarach]

Action Bawstard wrote...

This pretty much is what I feel about it

http://actionbawstar...dream-integrity

That is a knee-slapper. Good stuff. Dr. Ray protected the integrity of his team's art by personally emailing Jessica Chobot to ask her to be in the game (and that is how it happened, according to Chobot herself).

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 21 mars 2012 - 09:31 .

[teknoarcanist]

rhyddhau wrote...

teknoarcanist wrote...

My point is, it's a false dichotomy.  They're art AND products, as is ALMOST ALL ART.

And
all I see here is gamers shooting themselves in the foot, going "No,
they're products!  They're products!  My product is broken, I want it
fixed!  They're just toys!  It's supposed to entertain me, it doesn't,
fix it!"

ME3 is absolutely a work of art.  It's just a ****ty
one.  WHY it's a ****ty work of art -- a ****ty work of writing, a
****ty work of game design, etc -- is a more important and productive
avenue of discussion than why it's a failure as something so paltry and
sterile as an entertainment product.  I don't GIVE A **** that it failed
to redeem my dollar with a proper cost-value redemption: I care that it
told a bad story.

I can respect your take. I suppose that I completely agree: even supposing that it IS a work of art, I think it's poor art in that it a) fails in what it set out to do, and is rejected by most people experiencing it as inferior. To me, that's worse than not trying to make it art at all.

Agreed.

I'd just much rather the result of all this be "Okay, where did we fail as artists?" than "Okay, what's defective about our product?  How do we increase the value?  ...more multiplayer packs per drop...?"

And if, somewhere down the line, some exec in an office somewhere is pitched a narrative game, and goes "No, that's too risky.  Gamers flip their **** when artsy games fail; just make another multiplayer shooter," that would suck in a big way.  That's what I mean when I say I'm worried about the effect this is going to have on the discourse, and why it seems bizarre and masochistic as gamers.

Modifié par teknoarcanist, 21 mars 2012 - 09:34 .

[CrazyBirdman]

When I think about it, in modern art it would be considered a stroke of genius to cover a beautiful painting with jar.
The art-term is too shady to say whether something ist art or not. Generally I agree with BioWare to make the ending a bit more tight than expected because so they can control the emotional experiences more. The execution of this is debatable but the general approach to reduce the complexity towards the ending I can fully understand.
3Most players would also get mad about fully custumizable endings if they would not be executed flawlessly. I think we would just have a diffrent form of ****storm like: "BioWare, character B was important to me, why did he reference something that never happend in his last words. It tootally killed my experience and I don't like him anymore..."
I think no matter what they would have done it would be wrong. Admittedly this solution pissed probably the maximum amount of people of.

[Jayce]

KaMai19 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I'm sick and tired of BioWare hiding behind this, it seems they've taken the views of hack journalists to heart and are running around calling this ending "art".
No, Mass Effect 3 was art. The ending was like taking a beautiful painting and covering it with tar.
You're not defending art, BioWare, you're defending the tar that covers it.

I don't want to be talked down to and have it explained to me in game just why this ending is deep. It is n ot. It is mean spirited, malicious and cruel. It is thoughtless, hateful and without hope.
It violates the theme of Mass Effect and ruins the characters.

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.

Now, some of you may disagree. Fine, you can keep your ending and I hope you enjoy it, but I will keep fighting for mine. I will not "settle".

As you yourself indicate, art is subjective. To the people who created the ending, it's not tar. It's part of their vision, and since it came from their brain and took a lot of passion and hardwork to create, they're a hell of a lot more entitled than to decide whether or not they add onto it or change it.

That being said, unless the Indoctrination theory gets elaborated on, I'll have to agree with you that the ending is pretty tar-like. That's my opinion. But to say that the people who make a cultural product should betray their own vision to satisfy customers (and therefore publishers)...

This goes to the heart of the art debate. In Video games more than any other medium the audience is involved in the work. It's virtually the only creative medium where the audience is not merely a passive observer but an active participant. Players can and do become as creatively invested as the creator themselves. The Bioware debacle illustrates quite starkly that developers who forget or ignore this fundamental truth do so at their peril.

Savvy developers however not only recognize the part players have in the creative process and cater to fan expectations, but actively encourage them to join in by releasing SDKs and embracing to the mod community. 

If Bioware (and seemingly Ken Levine) are so insistant they, as the creators, are the only ones with any input in to the creative process, then they are badly out of touch.

Modifié par Jayce F, 21 mars 2012 - 09:42 .

[Costin_Razvan]

That still doesn't change the fact that we feel we deserve another ending, or at least closure to the crappy one we have now.

I don't disagree about closure, as in adding stuff to the current endings, a lot of stuff I might add. I would fine with that.

What I do disagree on is the indoctrination theory. It's BS.

 
^ Hey, you and I agree again. How pleasing. Boss battles are a overused trope, and they do not need to be shoehorned into everything. 

I am really glad they did that.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 mars 2012 - 09:45 .

[izmirtheastarach]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

That still doesn't change the fact that we feel we deserve another ending, or at least closure to the crappy one we have now.

I don't disagree about closure, as in adding stuff to the current endings, a lot of stuff I might add. I would fine with that.

From the many clarifications Bioware seems to be making via twitter, that seems to be what we are going to get. Not changes, but just new content.

[Costin_Razvan]

From the many clarifications Bioware seems to be making via twitter, that seems to be what we are going to get. Not changes, but just new content.

The only thing I would really hope they change is Anderson and TIM dying. I just don't want to have BOTH of them die, one or the other I can take, if it can be decided by me.

Seriously though, TIM showing up with those implants was ****. I really don't give a damn what they do with Catalyst, and who does really? I mean some like the ending choices like me, sure, what I doubt ANYONE likes is ****ing Catalyst.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 mars 2012 - 09:48 .

[Tovanus]

Artistic Integrity walked out the door when the Starchild walked in. They refused to be in the same room together.

[stysiaq]

I know that BioWare can defend their work, but I cannot see any artistic integrity in the godchild scene. It is anything but integral with all the previous writing. perhaps because its the only scene so terribly written, winning the contest with Lazarus Project (which, however, happens in the very beginning and is poor just because of incredibility of the fact, not massive plotholes)

[JamesYHT]

art...nice try.
when u need to use art to explain a game, u know how bad it is....

[Plasma Prestige]

 Bioware claims to be listening to us, but then make statements which make them seem clearly disconnected from the fans' criticism.

So, either they are lying, or they are using cheap PR tactics.

Either way it sucks.

[Burnham1]

Artistic integrity goes out the window the second you have the intent to commercialize it. It is no longer being made for the artist at that point. It is now being made for consumers. At this point, the "art" is no different than a tooth brush. It is a product meant to fill a certain purpose. The purpose of video games is to entertain their audience (not the people making them).

But of course, the artist doesn't ever have to change his/her product. S(he) can choose to leave it as is. The problem is, the artist must now face the consequences of that decision. The consequences are usually, that people will stop buying your art. You can continue to make your art, but you better not hope to sell it anymore, because you aren't going to be making any money after you just completely blew off your fans.

The fans of the art have every right to express their opinion on the art form, and to make demands on what they want included and what they don't. The artist has the right to refuse. If they choose to, then the fans have the right to no longer support the artist. Good luck making your art without the money to fund your projects.

Modifié par Burnham1, 21 mars 2012 - 10:09 .