243 réponses à ce sujet

[JonathanShepard]

The PLC wrote...

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

The PLC wrote...

If I released an album with my music, and my so called 'fans' started to yell at me to change the last few tracks, I would just tell them to **** off. Really. You din't like my album? Fine, sell it. Give it away. Burn it, I don't care. But don't you dare tell me how to do my stuff.

If your previous albums were rap and all of a sudden your latest album was a operatic ballad yea I think people might be legitimetly pissed.

Not my problem.

It is your problem if you lose paying fan customers, and nobody wants to buy your albums anymore. Because you see, it works both ways. The fans can ****** you off by asking you to change your music but at the same time they can also ****** you off by banding together and boycotting your music. And if enough fans get together to boycott your music, you're going to lose a crap ton of money, just for the sake of preserving your "art," so, it's your choice when it comes to losing money or preserving "art." 

Modifié par JonathanShepard, 22 mars 2012 - 07:58 .

[bobito64]

Colin Moriarty's response is understandable. He has been made to look a fool and nobody likes that. There are now two possibilities and neither put Moriarty in a good light.

The first possibility is that Moriarty has given a review score of 9.5 to a game that the developers have, only two weeks later, seen fit to change due to the poor quality of a major part, the ending. Not only did he not see the shortcomings of the game in his review but he has made a video ridiculing and insulting those who have. That doesn't say much for his judgement.

The second possibility, probably even worse for Moriarty's reputation, is also looking increasingly the more likely. That is that the ending was filled with deliberate plot holes, contradictions and other clues that it was not all that it seems and that Bioware always intended to continue the game beyond it. I am, of course, referring to the Indoctrination Theory. If it turns out that this, or something similar, was Bioware's intention all along then clearly they were confident that Moriarty and other reviewers weren't smart enough or independent minded enough to question an obviously implausible ending. And they were right, the review scores prove it.

Either way, Moriarty now has egg on his face. He can of course console himself that other reviewers were similarly sloppy in their work. A British magazine simply entitled 360 even listed "Fantastic Ending(s)" among the game's strengths. The writer of that review must feel like particularly embarrassed right now.

Modifié par bobito64, 22 mars 2012 - 08:14 .

[saracen16]

I agree with Colin's point: if fans are allowed to change the story of an artist, it would cease to be their own creation, but rather become something sterile and fan-boyish. That being said, BioWare is compromising: addressing the concerns of fan while maintaining their own artistic integrity. This makes both sides happy.

[Tazzmission]

bobito64 wrote...

Colin Moriarty's response is understandable. He has been made to look a fool and nobody likes that. There are now two possibilities and neither put Moriarty in a good light.

The first possibility is that Moriarty has given a review score of 9.5 to a game that the developers have, only two weeks later, seen fit to change due to the poor quality of a major part, the ending. Not only did he not see the shortcomings of the game in his review but he has made a video ridiculing and insulting those who have. That doesn't say much for his judgement.

The second possibility, probably even worse for Moriarty's reputation, is also looking increasingly the more likely. That is that the ending was filled with deliberate plot holes, contradictions and other clues that it was not all that it seems and that Bioware always intended to continue the game beyond it. I am, of course, referring to the Indoctrination Theory. If it turns out that this, or something similar, was Bioware's intention all along then clearly they were confident that Moriarty and other reviewers weren't smart enough or independent minded enough to question an obviously implausible ending.

Either way, Moriarty now has egg on his face. He can of course console himself that other reviewers were similarly sloppy in their work. A British magazine simply entitled 360 even listed "Fantastic Ending(s)" among the game's strengths. The writer of that review must feel like particularly embarrassed right now.

i dont think anyone should be embarressed at all


i know  im fine with the endings i dont love them and i dont hate them either i just find them passable basicly because it was pretty ovious they would add to it via dlc so i dont see how anyone can be mad at that




people on here crack on me so basicly that works both ways not just one .

if ign and whoever else likes it ok who cares?

that dosent mean they are payed off to say it

i know im not being payed for my statement and im fine with how the game is

Modifié par Tazzmission, 22 mars 2012 - 08:18 .

[JonathanShepard]

The PLC wrote...

JonathanShepard wrote...

It is your problem if you lose paying fan customers, and nobody wants to buy your albums anymore. Because you see, it works both ways. The fans can ****** you off by asking you to change your music but at the same time they can also ****** you off by banding together and boycotting your music. And if enough fans get together to boycott your music, you're going to lose a crap ton of money, just for the sake of preserving your "art," so, it's your choice when it comes to losing money or preserving "art." 

I'll preserve the art. I'll just take a second job if I have to. And I'm sure if my 'operatic ballad' is really good, the people who are into that stuff are going to pick it up. 

Hey, it's your funeral, Chief!!! Good for you, for choosing to preserve art, over making money. Especially in America's weak economy....My apologises if you don't actually live anywhere near America, to the point where America's economy can actually effect you. 

Modifié par JonathanShepard, 22 mars 2012 - 08:24 .

[phouria]

Artists at the company fight to maintain their own artistic integrity. When money comes into conflict, the big suits will ask the artists to sacrifice their integrity to accomdate the almighty dollar.

The artists have the option of complying or quitting.

It's the same no matter which industry you goto. Music? Artists will quit their label and find a new one. TV? artists will quit and find a new station. Then the big suits just finds substitutes to fill in that void or others to replace said artists.

When games first started coming around, it wasnt a big run thing for money. it was done out of pure joy and shared with that aspect. Video Games was a NICHE thing back in the day that made little money, where artists were payed poorly but they loved it. Things changed, and now games are bigger than ever, with budgets reaching in the hundreds of millions.But the mentality still remains the same: The people making the game treat it as an artform - the Corporate bigwigs are the ones with the $$$.

those that talk about the music and the artist complying to fans? we call those musicians "Sell Outs." but... you see em all the time. They're in it for the big bucks. If fans ****** off a musician, and they chose to hermit themselves so they can create their music for just themselves - then more power to them. it's not unheard of.

Modifié par phouria, 22 mars 2012 - 08:23 .

[instantdeath999]

I don't see why there can't be a happy middle. The guys saying that an artists true purpose is to please their fans... yeah, that's incredibly far from the truth.  As an artist myself, I'm actually a bit disgusted at all the misconceptions flying around, that art is essentially only an extension of business.   Art has existed far longer than business. However, there's nothing wrong with addressing faults in your piece, and in this case, Bioware are simply addressing the incomplete endings.  

In this case, IGN have a point, but so do the angry fans. Hopefully, Bioware will keep to their word, and find a way to address the ending controversy without making it a complete cop out.

Modifié par instantdeath999, 22 mars 2012 - 08:27 .

[instantdeath999]

JonathanShepard wrote...

The PLC wrote...

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

The PLC wrote...

If I released an album with my music, and my so called 'fans' started to yell at me to change the last few tracks, I would just tell them to **** off. Really. You din't like my album? Fine, sell it. Give it away. Burn it, I don't care. But don't you dare tell me how to do my stuff.

If your previous albums were rap and all of a sudden your latest album was a operatic ballad yea I think people might be legitimetly pissed.

Not my problem.

It is your problem if you lose paying fan customers, and nobody wants to buy your albums anymore. Because you see, it works both ways. The fans can ****** you off by asking you to change your music but at the same time they can also ****** you off by banding together and boycotting your music. And if enough fans get together to boycott your music, you're going to lose a crap ton of money, just for the sake of preserving your "art," so, it's your choice when it comes to losing money or preserving "art." 

That is simply not how music works, particularly in this day and age.  Frankly, your analogy makes more sense for a textile maker than a musician. 

Trust me, it's not as easy as you might imagine to boycott a musician, particularly with the advent of the internet and individual advertisement. 

Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...

The PLC wrote...

If
I released an album with my music, and my so called 'fans' started to
yell at me to change the last few tracks, I would just tell them to ****
off. Really. You din't like my album? Fine, sell it. Give it away. Burn
it, I don't care. But don't you dare tell me how to do my stuff.

If your previous albums were rap and all of a sudden your latest
album was a operatic ballad yea I think people might be legitimetly
pissed.

Some of the most highly regarded musicians
have been the most erratic and unpredictable ones.  Frank Zappa in
particular felt the need to change genre's practically every album, and
he's universally considered a genius. 

Modifié par instantdeath999, 22 mars 2012 - 08:33 .

[bobito64]

Tazzmission wrote...


i dont think anyone should be embarressed at all

i know  im fine with the endings i dont love them and i dont hate them either i just find them passable basicly because it was pretty ovious they would add to it via dlc so i dont see how anyone can be mad at that

people on here crack on me so basicly that works both ways not just one .

if ign and whoever else likes it ok who cares?

that dosent mean they are payed off to say it

i know im not being payed for my statement and im fine with how the game is

As a player, you are entitled to your taste and preferences. As a reviewer, he is supposed to be evaluating the game and informing people as to what they might expect. That he and other reviewers didn't spot the issue of the ending doesn't speak well for their competance.

Much as Moriarty would like to pretend that it is only a minority of ME3 players that have a problem with the ending, the indications are that very much the opposite is true. Three polls on three different websites, one of them on IGN's own, all showed that between 85 and 93% of players strongly disliked the ending and for reasons that a competant reviewer should have noticed.

Allow me to use an analogy, since others have chosen music, I will do so as well. Let's say gothic metal band released a new album, marketed as though it was similar to their previous work, that turned out to noticably softer and more commercial. It's entirely possible that the reviewer and some of their fans might like it. But the reviewer would be doing a very poor job if they didn't draw attention to the fact that it might not be what many fans were expecting.

Yes, these reviewers most certainly do have reason to be embarrased. 

Modifié par bobito64, 22 mars 2012 - 08:40 .

[JonathanShepard]

instantdeath999 wrote...

JonathanShepard wrote...

It is your problem if you lose paying fan customers, and nobody wants to buy your albums anymore. Because you see, it works both ways. The fans can ****** you off by asking you to change your music but at the same time they can also ****** you off by banding together and boycotting your music. And if enough fans get together to boycott your music, you're going to lose a crap ton of money, just for the sake of preserving your "art," so, it's your choice when it comes to losing money or preserving "art." 

That is simply not how music works, particularly in this day and age.  Frankly, your analogy makes more sense for a textile maker than a musician. 

Trust me, it's not as easy as you might imagine to boycott a musician, particularly with the advent of the internet and individual advertisement.

Don't you mean it's hard to completely boycott a musician, in this day and age? Because if enough angry fans got together, they could boycott his music and possibly shorten the digits on his paycheck, but of course not everyone on this freaking planet is of the same mind and of the same opinions, so of course this guy will still get money but that doesn't mean he still won't lose any money and get a smaller paycheck either...

Modifié par JonathanShepard, 22 mars 2012 - 08:57 .

[Faridle]

As an employe (layout) of an small independant news outlet I feel it necessary to inform Colin Moriarty about the basic rules of journalism.

1. Journalists are the publics watchdog we exist to protect and inform the public
2. We must be objective to fully convey the information in an correct manner and not to give either sides points.
3. Do not delibrately ****** off your readers that will only result in fewer ones in the long run
4. Never ever put yourself in an position where you take an ardent position of an debate that will lead to an later revoction of said position.
5. Journalists uses facts not subjectives in cases. Ergo inform that there is an debate and give the readers an insightful overview of the debates content without compromising your own objective standpoint.

Modifié par Faridle, 22 mars 2012 - 09:11 .

[DaJe]

That guy has no clue what the whole fuzz is about.

Instead of insulting the fans for wanting a proper ending he should look at Bioware for crapping out an insulting nonsense ending to an epic trillogy, as if that part didn't matter.

Coli is a horrible bootlicking journalist just like everyonme else over at IGN.

[AshenSugar]

Too many bad analogies are being made here.

If I were a musician who released an album containing a final track generally disliked by fans, and was asked to replace it - I'd probably be justified in telling them to sod off.

On the other hand, if I had created a piece of music for the purposes of a movie, game or television soundtrack, and thousands of fans stated that they felt one of the musical sequences jarred and clashed with the movie/game/TV series. It would not be unreasonable for me to listen to them, and even act upon their recommendations.

If I were a painter who created a portrait that was disliked by many critics, and was asked to re-paint it, I'd be justified in telling them to put up or shut up.

But...If I were asked to create a painting, or artwork for use as a backdrop to a movie, game or TV series, and thousands of fans told me that the loud, clashing colours ruined their enjoyment of the movie/game/TV it would be absolutely reasonable for me to listen to their views, and act upon them.


A movie director will typically run the first cut of the movie through a test audience.

He will generally act upon the reaction of that test audience, often choosing to change elements that were universally disliked by the test group. The movie might still be regarded as 'art', but it is a collaborative product designed to entertain; and in most circumstances is designed to appeal to a wide audience rather than a select few.

By the same token, Mass Effect 3 is a work of interactive entertainment, designed with heavy fan iteration; and it has been effectively run past the same 'test audience' - only this time, the audience happened to be mainstream fans who played after release.

Changes have been suggested, and like all good collaborative efforts designed iteratively with fans, the developers have indicated that they will work with the fans toward making changes - with the goal of creating a better product.

The IGN commentator is wrong, utterly, completely, and totally wrong. The 'precedent' shown by BIoware is actually (I fee l) a refreshing and healthy display of openess and flexibility.

[bobito64]

Colin Moriarty is clearly indoctrinated.

[Nicky 192]

IGN and objective, unbiased journalism are two completely separate things.

[LohnPondai]

Seriously... How can anyone trust this guy?? Check this... Here's Colin Moriarty 2 years ago discussing changes made to Infamous 2 after the release was met with some critizism:

"Obviously, the fact that Cole has been reverted back to his old self (somewhat) is great news. After all, Greg and I did our fair share of whining on Podcast Beyond after the new Cole was first shown on the cover of Game Informer some months back. Of course, I’d love for Sucker Punch to bring back Cole’s old voice, too, but hey – beggars can’t be choosers.

But beyond (BEYOND!) the excitement I feel to have old Cole back in Infamous 2, I think the sudden change in character model says a lot more. Indeed, it says a great deal about Sucker Punch itself. This is a studio that listens to its fans, cares what they want, and attempts to cater to as many of them as possible. There’s no doubt that fans of a franchise can’t be trusted with every little thing (after all, look at how many people were completely and utterly wrong when they predicted Wind Waker would suck based solely on its graphics – I still laugh at those people today), but it still delivers a rather important point.

But with the new Cole design, Sucker Punch heard loud and clear what fans of Infamous wanted, and they delivered. Infinite amounts of kudos to them for doing right by their community."

So he really changed his mind about the issue or he is getting well paid to defend his actual position. It speaks very poorly of what should be an unbiased journalist.

Hypocrisy anyone?

Modifié par LohnPondai, 23 mars 2012 - 08:37 .