243 réponses à ce sujet

[Lincoln MuaDib]

Gigamantis wrote... There's no failure of the creative process being proven or even rationally discussed.  This is just a childish attempt to extort the company by scaring off potential new fans with gross exaggerations and flat out lies.  You people getting your way here would be a failure in the creative process. 

Gigamantis wrote... gross exaggerations and flat out lies.

Gigamantis wrote... gross exaggerations and flat out lies.

Gigamantis wrote... gross exaggerations and flat out lies.

Gigamantis wrote... gross exaggerations and flat out lies.

*facepalm*

Modifié par Lincoln MuaDib, 22 mars 2012 - 02:33 .

[GoldFinger008]

 Personally I use to frequent IGN on a regular basis, but this IDIOT and his status quo stance and using Vocal Minority has turned me away from this site for a long..... long time.

[iamthedave3]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Godzillla 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.

lol ...so called "fans" who fund your music 

maybe you dont understand how commodities work in the market place ...video games are not art pieces ..they are commodities funded by consumers ..bioware would be foolish not to at least slightly appease the retake movement because of unforseen consequences down the road 

Sorry you are entirely wrong. They are not commodities that gamers fund making the game as many games do not make back their investment in sales $ and the studios fold or are acquired by companies like EA or Activision. They garner sales based on marketing to gamers that it is a game they should enjoy playing. Like appeasing them doesn't also have unforseen and (known) consequences down the road. Appeasement usually ends bad with history as a guide. People always want more when emboldened by success.

I know. Look at how Bethesda went under after bowing to fan pressure over the ending of Fallout 3! They never went on to make games like... wait, Skyrim?

[IBPROFEN]

tamperous wrote...

Show me an artist that doesn't please his fans.... I show you next guy tending bar.

  Thought that was supposed to be the guy drawing the cartoonish pictures of ppl at the state fairs.

[Ronin1325]

wastelander75 wrote...

Oh and just to add more precedent (SOME what), on the movie aspect of it all: If you'll recall, George Lucas originally intended the title to his third installment in the original trilogy to be REVENGE of the Jedi. But due in no small part of the fans telling him that revenge contradicts the very nature of a Jedi, he agreed and retitled it to RETURN of the Jedi.

There are still pre-release movie posters bearing that title as proof of that.

Yup! And my wife & I have one. Dang are they expensive!  

[Lincoln MuaDib]

chance52 wrote...

I am a full time artist. When I have my work hanging in a gallery for viewing/sales I hear a lot of feedback. People buy my work as is, they don't buy it and then ask me to make changes so that it's more to their tastes. And if they did I admit I would likely tell them 'no' and be offended enough to try and get the gallery to refuse the sale to that patron.

Excellent point! The difference between you and BioWare is that, as you said, you have your work hanging in a gallery for viewing/sales. People actually get to see what they're buying, so they can make an INFORMED decision as to whether to buy it or not!

If a client bought, say, your Painting "A", then you gave them Painting "B" instead, I hardly imagine you'd say "It's my Art! You don't like it? Tough, you bought it! Give you the painting you paid for? Why are you interfering with my Artistic Vision?"

[chance52]

Lincoln MuaDib wrote...

chance52 wrote...

I am a full time artist. When I have my work hanging in a gallery for viewing/sales I hear a lot of feedback. People buy my work as is, they don't buy it and then ask me to make changes so that it's more to their tastes. And if they did I admit I would likely tell them 'no' and be offended enough to try and get the gallery to refuse the sale to that patron.

Excellent point! The difference between you and BioWare is that, as you said, you have your work hanging in a gallery for viewing/sales. People actually get to see what they're buying, so they can make an INFORMED decision as to whether to buy it or not!

If a client bought, say, your Painting "A", then you gave them Painting "B" instead, I hardly imagine you'd say "It's my Art! You don't like it? Tough, you bought it! Give you the painting you paid for? Why are you interfering with my Artistic Vision?"

You left off the rest of my post...

"HOWEVER, I also take photographs and deal with editors for
newspapers/magazines and they absolutely tell me what to shoot and what
to change and what works and what will never see the light of day. If I
blow a shoot you can bet I'll be told to do it again and I will do it
again even if I think I nailed it the first time.

There is a gigantic difference between producing art to express oneself and producing art for commercial purposes. "

[Gigamantis]

Salis777 wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

This is a creative industry and anything that compromises that is a BAD THING.  You seem to hate when share-holders and bean counters make decisions that would compromise the creative integrity of a game, but "blah blah business" is fine when it's equally creatively impotent people espousing your opinions? 

I'll repeat, I don't want Bioware game's being influenced by you or anyone like you.  Differing to uncreative and untalented people for business reasons is a slippery slope. 

They sold out to EA, I beg to differ on all of your points.

It's great to have ideals for what SHOULD be going on, but its a business that put out a crappy product (consumer opinion).  Tough life, but they'll deal with it.

Not sure what your point is here.  EA interferes creatively sometimes so what is required is more creative interference from other detrimental sources?  User feedback is fine; constructive feedback would've been integrated into the creative process for future games. 

An alternate ending from a blatant extortion attempt from users is going to be garbage, though.  I don't recall anything like this happening in the gaming industry prior and it's such a poor precedent to set.   I won't touch anything that reeks of being forced from the creators for appeasement and I have no idea why anyone would want that.  If you can't handle stories that aren't your creative interpretation of something then stop reading other peoples' stories. 

Modifié par Gigamantis, 22 mars 2012 - 02:52 .

[InvincibleHero]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Sorry you are entirely wrong. They are not commodities that gamers fund making the game as many games do not make back their investment in sales $ and the studios fold or are acquired by companies like EA or Activision. They garner sales based on marketing to gamers that it is a game they should enjoy playing. Like appeasing them doesn't also have unforseen and (known) consequences down the road. Appeasement usually ends bad with history as a guide. People always want more when emboldened by success.

I know. Look at how Bethesda went under after bowing to fan pressure over the ending of Fallout 3! They never went on to make games like... wait, Skyrim?

Broken Steel did not sell as many units as the base game. I never bought it disliked how the endings were but didn't rage over it.  My 150+ hours weer well-spent enjoying the rest of the game. They sold millions of units of FO3 and Oblivion and obviously is one of the most successful videogame companies. I would have kept buying their products but physical copies require steam and I refuse to waver no matter how much I loved their games.

It's a fact look at some of the movement using their "success" at getting Deception rewritten as proof BW must change the ending toi their satisfaction.

Modifié par InvincibleHero, 22 mars 2012 - 02:52 .

[Ronin1325]

Lincoln MuaDib wrote...

The fans aren't asking that BioWare give them something that BioWare said they would not get.

The fans are asking that BioWare give them something that BioWare said they WOULD get.

Imagine I sold you a Ferrari. It was nice. I gave you the keys and stated, "I promise you'll love this car, and it will last 30 years." So you're driving down an open highway, your partner handfeeding you chocolate and winking cheekily, you're thinking, hey, life could NOT be better, I'm loving every minute of this! And then . . .

*Bam*! The car's engine expodes! You're sitting in a burning hulk! Your trousers have been blown off, your partner is crying and the chocolates are gone. You crawl to the side of the road and wait for an ambulance.

In hospital, you call me, the car dealer.
“Hello, is this the guy that sold me that Ferrari?” you ask.
“Yes, it is. Drives great, right?”
“It blew up. I’m not happy.”
“Blew up? Yeah, that’s probably because of the bomb I put in the engine.”
“Why would you DO that?”
“Well, things always change in development. What was your favourite part of driving the car?”


Really, if BioWare had said, BEFORE launch, "We must be honest, things changed so the endings you get might be much less choice than you might have expected, however throughout the game you see the effect of earlier choices, feel free to buy or not"- then we'd be fine.

But no. Up to an INCLUDING launch day, they stuck by their statements that "It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C....."

Then were surprised at our anger at being lied to.

Nailed it. This is not at all about artistic integrity. This is about getting the product they said we would. The dev quotes up until the time of release making the point we would have wildly divergent endings based on our choices are there for everyone to see. That is why so many are upset. Let's have some response to that instead of this 'artistic integrity' strawman.

[Ronin1325]

wastelander75 wrote...

Ronin1325 wrote...

wastelander75 wrote...

Oh and just to add more precedent (SOME what), on the movie aspect of it all: If you'll recall, George Lucas originally intended the title to his third installment in the original trilogy to be REVENGE of the Jedi. But due in no small part of the fans telling him that revenge contradicts the very nature of a Jedi, he agreed and retitled it to RETURN of the Jedi.

There are still pre-release movie posters bearing that title as proof of that.

Yup! And my wife & I have one. Dang are they expensive!  

Jealousy. I haz it.

Off Thread, but I'll take a pic of it if you want one.

[ArcanistLibram]

According to IGN's Facebook poll, 1,262 people like the ending and 13,864 don't. Even if you factor in the 2,548 people who aren't done playing the game yet, 78% of the respondents hate the ending. That's not a minority no matter how unsound the polling methodology is.

[The Edge]

Both those Colins looked like morons in that video. Could they not grasp the plot-holes that made the ending so bad?! Did they not understand the promises broken regarding the ending?!

And where the hell is the counter-arguement to their opinions?

[GoldFinger008]

Colin is grossly out of touch with the fan base, Colin and IGN are the ones losing respect not Bioware.

[Lincoln MuaDib]

chance52 wrote...

You left off the rest of my post...

"HOWEVER, I also take photographs and deal with editors for
newspapers/magazines and they absolutely tell me what to shoot and what
to change and what works and what will never see the light of day. If I
blow a shoot you can bet I'll be told to do it again and I will do it
again even if I think I nailed it the first time.

There is a gigantic difference between producing art to express oneself and producing art for commercial purposes. "

Yes, I know. It was not meant as an insult. The point I was making is that, even regarding what you yourself produce as art to express yourself with, you would never think of not allowing patrons to view your art without viewing it. This makes you more ethical than BioWare.

I do apologise if you thought I was trying to insult you.

[Chun Hei]

[The Edge]

Chun Hei wrote...

Should be IGN, not BSN.

[Gatt9]

[quote]InvincibleHero wrote...

[quote]iamthedave3 wrote...

Sorry you are entirely wrong. They are not commodities that gamers fund making the game as many games do not make back their investment in sales $ and the studios fold or are acquired by companies like EA or Activision. They garner sales based on marketing to gamers that it is a game they should enjoy playing. Like appeasing them doesn't also have unforseen and (known) consequences down the road. Appeasement usually ends bad with history as a guide. People always want more when emboldened by success.[/quote]

I know. Look at how Bethesda went under after bowing to fan pressure over the ending of Fallout 3! They never went on to make games like... wait, Skyrim?

[/quote]
Broken Steel did not sell as many units as the base game. I never bought it disliked how the endings were but didn't rage over it.  My 150+ hours weer well-spent enjoying the rest of the game. They sold millions of units of FO3 and Oblivion and obviously is one of the most successful videogame companies. I would have kept buying their products but physical copies require steam and I refuse to waver no matter how much I loved their games.

It's a fact look at some of the movement using their "success" at getting Deception rewritten as proof BW must change the ending toi their satisfaction. [/quote]

You probably should've done your research prior to posting that.

-Bethesda is owned by a different company,  Zenimax funds them.  Much like Bioware,  doesn't matter how many units sell,  Bethesda doesn't go until the parent goes.

-Fallout 3 is a great example of this,  and why you need to do research.  Bethesda announced they shipped 4.6 million units,  doing the math on the NPD reports yields less than half of those units sold before they dropped off the charts.

-Oblivion was effectively the only RPG on all 3 platforms for around a year.  It's not hard to sell alot of copies when there's no competition.

-Bethesda is far from one of the most successful companies.  They're largely irrelevant.  All they've done is released the exact same game with fewer features for 15 years,  even when they had the opportunity to do something new,  they just turned it into TES with guns.  They aren't anywhere near the league of EA's history,  Activision's,  Valve's,  Blizzard's,  Square-Enix's,  Capcom's,  or Nintendo.  They managed to revolutionize gaming just once,  with TES : Arena,  and they've been riding that into the ground ever since.

-Bethesda is largely a product of this generation of gaming's complete lack of objective press.  If the gaming press actually gave games appropriate ratings,  Bethesda wouldn't have sold nearly as many units.  For example,  how many PS3 copies of Skyrim do you really think they'd have sold if the reviewers had actually accounted for and mentioned "There's a gamekilling bug that can't be avoided"?

-Although I will give them credit,  they do seem to be able to release an Industry record setting number of bugs with each release,  and they manage to release an increasing severity with each release.  One has to wonder if they even have a QA department.

[Shaigunjoe]

I don't think you should lose respect for anyone standing their ground, afterall isn't that exactly what you are doing? Something about line holding?

Try and look at this from Colin's perspective, he writes reviews for a living, do you know how many times he is probably asked to change his opinion on something? It is a core aspect of his character to not give in to pressure from the masses no matter what opinion he has. If he sees a loud group of people wanting something their way instead of the way the creators intended it, who side do you think he would pick?

[CerberusSoldier]

why must we give a site like IGN any time . they suck

[Banelash]

chance52 wrote...

Lincoln MuaDib wrote...

chance52 wrote...

I am a full time artist. When I have my work hanging in a gallery for viewing/sales I hear a lot of feedback. People buy my work as is, they don't buy it and then ask me to make changes so that it's more to their tastes. And if they did I admit I would likely tell them 'no' and be offended enough to try and get the gallery to refuse the sale to that patron.

Excellent point! The difference between you and BioWare is that, as you said, you have your work hanging in a gallery for viewing/sales. People actually get to see what they're buying, so they can make an INFORMED decision as to whether to buy it or not!

If a client bought, say, your Painting "A", then you gave them Painting "B" instead, I hardly imagine you'd say "It's my Art! You don't like it? Tough, you bought it! Give you the painting you paid for? Why are you interfering with my Artistic Vision?"

You left off the rest of my post...

"HOWEVER, I also take photographs and deal with editors for
newspapers/magazines and they absolutely tell me what to shoot and what
to change and what works and what will never see the light of day. If I
blow a shoot you can bet I'll be told to do it again and I will do it
again even if I think I nailed it the first time.

There is a gigantic difference between producing art to express oneself and producing art for commercial purposes. "

You sir are correct. As a fellow artist, we know what we are talking about. Art and commercial purpose Art are 2 entirely different things. One goes by the direction of the artist and the other goes by the direction of the client.

Modifié par Banelash, 22 mars 2012 - 03:09 .

[Oni Changas]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I don't think you should lose respect for anyone standing their ground, afterall isn't that exactly what you are doing? Something about line holding?

Try and look at this from Colin's perspective, he writes reviews for a living, do you know how many times he is probably asked to change his opinion on something? It is a core aspect of his character to not give in to pressure from the masses no matter what opinion he has. If he sees a loud group of people wanting something their way instead of the way the creators intended it, who side do you think he would pick?

There's that... and then there's being an ignorant jackass who talks down on gamers. Moriarty tends to be the latter.