132 réponses à ce sujet

[Aesieru]

Tazzmission wrote...

batlin wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...
did you write or develop mass effect? if not just stop where you are at because if you had no part in the development than you have no reason to say otherwise

Are you saying that in order to criticize something you must have had a hand in its creation?

no im saying if you didnt take part in the project at all you are in no way in the right  of demanding the rightfull creator to change a thing

its one thing to critisize but what your asking is pretty crazy and go's against what creative rights stand for

Publishers don't have a hand in its development merely its distribution which is really an automatic process at factories. They still demand things and get it.

[Ronin1325]

Tazzmission wrote...

Yttrian wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

hey op i have a question

did you write or develop mass effect? if not just stop where you are at because if you had no part in the development than you have no reason to say otherwise

A customer has no reason to criticise a product?

:sigh: do you even know what critisizing means?

because demanding someone change there work isnt critisizim

Many, if not most of us are upset because we did not get the product that was advertised to us. I'm not going to link to all the piles of Dev quotes made up to the day after release that promised us wildly divergent endings based on our choices. We didn't get that by any stretch of the imagination. So, Tazzmission, we can't complain about that? 

[Ronin1325]

Also, I wonder how much Bioware stuck to their 'artistic integrity' when EA said "Make this game more appealing to the 'pew-pew' crowd. RPG's are a niche market which is not profitable enough for us."

[Dave of Canada]

Pay 1-10+ million and you'll have a say in it.

[Biosargent]

Ronin1325 wrote...

Also, I wonder how much Bioware stuck to their 'artistic integrity' when EA said "Make this game more appealing to the 'pew-pew' crowd. RPG's are a niche market which is not profitable enough for us."

And that is their inevitable downfall. Especially how the large fanbase was composed of RPG fans.

[batlin]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Pay 1-10+ million and you'll have a say in it.

Ah, so whether or not you retain your artistic integrity is dependant on how much you get paid to make changes to your work.

I see now.

[Ronin1325]

Biosargent wrote...

Ronin1325 wrote...

Also, I wonder how much Bioware stuck to their 'artistic integrity' when EA said "Make this game more appealing to the 'pew-pew' crowd. RPG's are a niche market which is not profitable enough for us."

And that is their inevitable downfall. Especially how the large fanbase was composed of RPG fans.

That's a relatively large fanbase. I'm sure all the RPG players on the planet are just a small portion of the FIFA & Madden players out there. To say nothing of the GOW/FPS crowd. EA would clearly like to try to make each of their games appeal to the largest possible demographic, meaning they will all be simplified & genericized.

Oh, except for those sports games. Becaus the demographic is already so huge they don't need to change it. But could you imagine the outrage if they put dating-sim aspects into FIFA? Holy Cow, fans of the game would raise a ruckus so large it would make this ME debacle look like a minor tiff. But they don't have to because their genre is NOT a niche genre.

[Zanallen]

...How often do publishers demand changes be made to an already finished and released product? 'Cause I don't recall that happening.

Modifié par Zanallen, 22 mars 2012 - 01:20 .

[avatar2396]

Zanallen wrote...

...How often do publishers demand changes be made to an already finished and released product? 'Cause I don't recall that happening.

It happens a lot less than people here would lead you to believe. I think for smaller gaming companies the publisher would probably have more direct input but for established companies that turn a good profit they generally only have to deal with release dates and price points. I dont think creative control is an issue in this case

[durasteel]

Mercedonius wrote...

It is just a video game after all. 

It's not, though. It's really not.

"Just a videogame" describes a product that only matters while you're playing it. The time you spend actively engaged in using the product is all you ever get out of it. That doesn't apply to Mass Effect. The depth of story, character development, rich textures of the virtual world, and treatment of profound universal themes create an emotional attachment to persists long after you stop playing.

Look at this forum, man. Mass Effect drew us in so far that when the ending sucker punched us, it had a real impact far beyond button mashing. We're still reeling from the blow.

Look, here is the truth: I've got some crap in my life... and so do 99% of us. Sometimes you need some escapism, and I don't think I've ever seen a better outlet for it than Mass Effect. Unlike most other fantasy, I could actually be Commander Shepard, at least on an emotional level, while I was playing the game. I made decisions that effected people whose reaction was accessible on an emotional basis due to the quality of the digital preformance and voice acting. When I, as Commander Shepard, did something heroic, I felt good about it and it helped to balance the real-world crap. That's more than just a game, more than just a distraction.

That level of engagement is why this is such a big deal. If it was "just a video game," then the ending really wouldn't matter very much.

Modifié par durasteel, 22 mars 2012 - 02:06 .

[durasteel]

Tazzmission wrote...

:sigh: do you even know what critisizing means?

because demanding someone change there work isnt critisizim

Look, you can parse this issue however you see fit, and banter semantics all day, but it doesn't change the simple facts. Looking at the ending in comparison with the rest of the game, obvious and unfortunate differences become very apparent. A huge amount of effort was obviously put into making sure that narrative threads were carried through the trilogy faithfully, and that contradictions were minimized for almost the entirety of the game. When fantastical sci-fi elements were introduced, they were explained by in-game experts or in codex entries. When a final confrontation took place, the groundwork had been laid so that it had significance, relevance, and emotional impact for both Shepard and the player.

The ending, in its current form, deviates substantially from that paradigm. Looking at it in context, it does not seem to come from the same creative team--at least not from the same creative process. You don't have to look far to understand why, either. The basic concepts shown in the ending might have been tossed around the bullpen years ago in the early design stage, but they weren't thoroughly realized and scripted until the very last minute. The ending was unfinished and floating in limbo until about 4 months ago, when they finally threw something together in time for console certification.

You can talk all you want to about "artistic integrity," but that doesn't change the fact that the ending of this epic trilogy was half-assed in a hurry to meet a deadline. How much integrity and art does that get you?

If you want to respect the artistic integrity of this game, this franchise, and this team, I think the answer is clear. Give them the chance to do it right. These artists have been providing us with first-rate gold standard entertainment for years--they have earned a Mulligan. Let them take the time to create an ending that they can be proud of, and that does actually reflect their artistic integrity. Looking at the rest of the game, and the rest of the series, I have absolute confidence that we will love it.

Modifié par durasteel, 22 mars 2012 - 02:08 .

[batlin]

Zanallen wrote...

...How often do publishers demand changes be made to an already finished and released product? 'Cause I don't recall that happening.

What difference does that make

[Serpicos]

The PLC wrote...

Well, the publisher is paying for the game to be released.

And I'm paying to buy it so whats your point?

[Femlob]

scyphozoa wrote...

ahh, I can't wait till kickstarter starts financing 20million+ dollar games. Publishers are near obsolete, as are retailers. We don't need anything between customers and developers. The sooner that day comes, the better.

/signed

[Ryften]

batlin wrote...

But when fans demand changes in a game, it "violates artistic integrity"?

The only difference I see here is that publisher demands force changes while fan demands have no real influence.

I agree with your point. However I don't think developers should change their product for ANYBODY. IF the publisher won't put it out or put up with it, go to someone who will. As far as the fans go, their take on artistic vision is often varied and ambivalent. So why would a company change for them?

Put your product out. Stand by it.

[overbite]

batlin wrote...
 while fan demands have no real influence.

nah fans have a 100% influence in the brand .

"it's the we lose interest in your products and don't buy your crap clause".

i guarantee if no one purchased any  of the dlc  or everyone decided in mass to cancel  from kotor for a week as a sign to fix the game then they would shift focus and fix the game.

Modifié par overbite, 22 mars 2012 - 03:27 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Oh good, I get to wake up and see someone saying that video game development is akin to prostitution.

Because that's not stupid AT ALL.

[Everwarden]

batlin wrote...

Yeah. Something tells me "artistic integrity" doesn't necessarily protect gaping plot holes.

[batlin]

scyphozoa wrote...

ahh, I can't wait till kickstarter starts financing 20million+ dollar games. Publishers are near obsolete, as are retailers. We don't need anything between customers and developers. The sooner that day comes, the better.

We can hope

[Overule]

Well spoken OP. Artistic integrity never had much to do with what's going on here... as Dr. Ray would like us to believe.

[CerberusSoldier]

Banelash wrote...

well you are missing the point in this post tazz. If EA suddenly says, "hey bioware, you gotta change your ending", do you think bioware will tell EA to GTFO or compromise their artistic integrity.

    



EA owns Bioware .

[Father_Jerusalem]

batlin wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

ahh, I can't wait till kickstarter starts financing 20million+ dollar games. Publishers are near obsolete, as are retailers. We don't need anything between customers and developers. The sooner that day comes, the better.

We can hope

I'm just curious. In your quote, isn't that the same Gabe Newell that fans were ripping on for being fat? Not for making bad games, or games they don't like, or anything like that... but because he's fat?

Yeah, that sounds like an EXCELLENT group of people to try and cater to in every way possible. 

[CerberusSoldier]

Overule wrote...

Well spoken OP. Artistic integrity never had much to do with what's going on here... as Dr. Ray would like us to believe.

    



A creator has a right to defend and protect his or her creation . In Bioware's case they made the decision a long time agao to make a player choice driven story game series . a choice like that will always end in either bad or good . If developers want to have full creative control then they make games with out player choice .

[Mafia_Steve]

The PLC wrote...

Well, the publisher is paying for the game to be released.

And where does the publisher get that money from? Planet scanning?

Is there art in the game? Of course. But, it is commissioned art; discounting the artistic defense. Let's not kid ourselves here - this is EA that we're talking about. How much of the game was tailored around Market anaysis? How much content was added or cut for the sake of market potential and viability? Mass Effect 3's purpose is to make money first, and be an artistic endeavor a distant second. The art defense is a cheap and easy defense. Any defiance by Bioware or EA is strictly about cost.