807 réponses à ce sujet

[Sparse]

Phategod1 wrote...
Do you honestly believe that Christopher Nolan, Maichael Bay, or James Cameron hold in high regard what the audience believes about there "artistic vision" (NOTE: I hate one of the Three directors I just mentioned with the passion of one million suns).

Of course they do. They wouldn't be successful if they didn't hold in very high regard what their likely consumers think. You really believe that none of them have ever put their films before test audiences to see how they are going to play out and then reacted to the feedback?? You really believe that none of them have ever had a movie executive poke their nose in and talk about customer demographics and target audiences??

And I trust it is Michael Bay that you don't like.

The goal for any artist whether it be a painter a director, or a singer ect. is to have ther product consumed at a market level but when it comes changing that already developed, finish product
due to the outcry of a minority or hell even the majority thats when
the product ceases to be art and simple JUST a game.

You are rather saying that it is alright for developers to sit in meetings with marketing staff looking at pie charts about customers, and it is alright for them to compromise ideas for their target market and profit-cost calculations during development, but if they do the same after release for precisely the same reasons it fundamentally changes their output.

I don't think that holds water. If you are compromising for commercial reasons you are compromising for commercial reasons. I think it is still art at that point, because art is a compromise to social and cultural expectations and often to commercial expectations too and always has been. If such a compromise makes something no longer art then most commercial art was never art in the first place.

Modifié par Sparse, 22 mars 2012 - 10:27 .

[Madecologist]

I can't hold it back anymore. The title of this thread makes me giggle. Mostly because it is generally accepted that games don't usually have good writing, or more so, bad endings are common in games (even if the overall writing was good).

So technically speaking, conventional storytelling in games wasn't something we should be proud about and ruining it may very well be a good thing....

*looks at time* Oh, I see why -Evil-Madecologist is starting to manifest itself . Well more like extra cynical to be exact.

Modifié par Madecologist, 22 mars 2012 - 10:29 .

[Tazzmission]

Phategod1 wrote...

 1st let me say that this following statement is for older individuals with common sense and the ability to form coherent sentences. Your the ones I am disappointed in, not the 16 year old children who should not even be playing the M rated ME1 from several years ago. What you dont understand is, if Bioware and Casey Hudson have agreed to actually change the ending based on the arguaments, then what has been achieved is the fans have comepletely invalidated Casey Hudson's artistic vision, and video games artistic value as a whole. 

stopped reading right after this i just quoted

you might want to rephrase that seeing as that is considered bashing buddy

i also agree with your post but seriously dude you may want to endit the whole common sense thing out

Modifié par Tazzmission, 22 mars 2012 - 10:30 .

[Kulthar Drax]

I know this has probably already been said, but Bethesda made Fallout 3's Broken Steel DLC and to be honest (I completed Fallout 3 both with and without Broken Steel) I consider the game to be massively better for Broken Steel's inclusion. It was a masterfully done expansion pack. So changing the endings/adding more endings/adding an expansion pack DLC for Mass Effect 3 is not likely to be the "industry breaker" people are claiming it would be.

[Laughing.Man.d8D]

Phategod1 wrote...

 1st let me say that this following statement is for older individuals with common sense and the ability to form coherent sentences. Your the ones I am disappointed in, not the 16 year old children who should not even be playing the M rated ME1 from several years ago. What you dont understand is, if Bioware and Casey Hudson have agreed to actually change the ending based on the arguaments, then what has been achieved is the fans have comepletely invalidated Casey Hudson's artistic vision, and video games artistic value as a whole. 

What this means is video games are not art, have no artistic value and are just a product. Movies, books, and other form set to entertain can be claimed as art as such we all can base an opinion on it, but when you demand the artist change it, most times they'll laugh in your face and tell you to sod off because its there art they made it and its your choice to enjoy it or not or buy it or not. When the finished product is comprimised for the sake of the vocal majority of the customers then the product is not an artistic vision but just a product. 

For all those entitled individuals you paid $60-$190 for A game or games. If you do not work for Bioware or the dev team for Mass Effect then you do not have the right to demand story changes. Sure, you made decisions that affected your Shepard but those are decions that were given to you by Casey and the writers, every single piece of fiction has plotholes thats a fact of life. For those who don't like the ending, you have a right to your opinion but when you demand a change, you have over stepped your bounds as a fan and a consumer, and you may singlehandedly destroyed modern story telling in games. 

Thanks for any one who took the time to read all this and Apoligize for length and any spelling or grammatical errors I missed.

http://www.themetaga...oblem-with.html

Bioware dropped the ball in the end.

Modifié par Laughing.Man.d8D, 22 mars 2012 - 10:34 .

[Element Zero]

Thank you, OP. We couldn't have done it without the help of so very many people. We are very proud of what we've accomplished. Now who's whining and being melodramatic? :eyeroll:

Bioware is doing the right thing and should be applauded. I hope they understand that the disappointment with the game as launched is a result of the amazing work they'd done in their many games before this one. Criticism can be difficult, and rudeness is never productive, but I'm glad they have the humility to take a second look at their product. Humility is too rare a trait.

Modifié par tallrickruush, 22 mars 2012 - 10:35 .

[crimzontearz]

Mr Holmes says hi

I'm not even getting into comicbooks

[rma2110]

Interactive media should no be constrained by the limitations of convential story telling. This is not a movie or a book and should not be treated as such. No wonder writing in games is so horrid. It's being held back by the constraints of old mediums.

[Phategod1]

Mastermadskills wrote...

Why I dislike this thread and the author:

#1.  The premise of this thread is not backed up, OP states opinion as fact, and OP immediately starts out with an air of contention.

#2.  OP complains about bad writing and reading comprehension by 15 year olds, when the writer himself writes on a level equal to that of a 15 year old.

#3.  Premise of "art" not only opinion based, but fails on all levels.

#4.  Poorly organized writing.  Does not follow conventional persuasion frame of O.R.E.O style writing.

#5.  Not only is the writing terrible, but I disagree and strongly oppose every single persuasionary point of this thread sheerly on principle.




1/5 star rating deserved.  1/5 stars rating given.

Thats you opinion I don't know if your a english Teacher or major, but If you understood the Original Post then I accomplished my goal. Like I said earlier I made this at 4AM EST and to add to that fact, after working a 10 hour shift and I apologized for any grammatical error so cut cut me some slack. As for condescending tone you may have picked up on I was being comepletely honest I didn't want a response from children or lets say "anyone under American drinking  age" and leave it at that. Sorry If I alienated anyone, but I wanted a well thought out responses but I appreciate your critique of my OP, but feedback on how I could Improve it would have been even more appreciated. 

Modifié par Phategod1, 22 mars 2012 - 10:46 .

[2Shepards]

Agreeing with most of the replies.

Also I see myself as forcing Bio to stick to their artistic vision, as they are very quick to abandon it themselves.

Modifié par 2Shepards, 22 mars 2012 - 10:38 .

[crymzenassassin]

Nefelius wrote...

Tell that to Doyle and Fallout 3 team.

lol wut? Fallout 3 didn't have its events change..the ending was expanded on and it wasn't done because people kicked and screamed like little babies until they got thier own way, it wasn't done because people didn't like it..it was done because Bethesda realised you COULD NOT play the DLC after you finished the game.

bethesda expanded on the ending with broken steel to fix a major flaw in gameplay...get your facts straight

[Yttrian]

Phategod1 wrote...

Thats you opinion I don't know if your a english Teacher or major, but If you understood the Original Post then I accomplished my goal. Like I said earlier I made this at 4AM EST and to add tothat fact, after working a 10 hour shift and I apologized for any grammatical error so cut cut me some slack. As for condescending tone you may have picked up on I was being comepletely honest I didn't want a response from children or lets say "anyone under American drinking  age" and leave it at that. Sorry If I alienated anyone, but I wanted a well thought out responses but I appreciate your critique of my OP, but feedback on how I could Improve it would have been even more appreciated. 

Your literacy skills have no relevance when your argument has over half a dozen logical fallacies which you then defend with emotive reasoning and claiming the moral high ground of honesty.

[Foxhound2121]

Phategod1 wrote...

MrFob wrote...

To the OP:
Ok, first of all, what is artistic integrity? If someone makes a movie and later makes a directors cut, is that compromising the artistic integrity? If writer writes a book and then writes a sequel, that does not adhere what was established in the first one (similar to what the ME3 endings did), that changed things and does that compromise artistic integrity? When Raphael or Michelangelo made alterations to their sculptures and paintings to get the end result we see and admire today because their patrons demanded it, does that corrupt artistic integrity? I find the whole concept very flimsy and an argument on a flimsy basis is never a good idea.
2. How important is artistic integrity and why? Why shouldn't changes be made if they improve the end result? This is a point that IMO is very specific to entertainment art rather then really abstract art. You could argue that the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series compromised the artistic integrity of the original series but still, millions of people enjoyed it immensly and I ask you, is that such a bad thing?
3. And here comes the crucial point, we (as in the fans) do not change the ending! We are telling the artist (BW) that we are not happy with it and that we'd like to see a change/addition. If the ending were to be changed, it would be solely and only BW's decision to do so and they would be the ones to implement the change. It would still be their artistic vision if they wished to do so. We are asking for that, but we are not proposing to take the prerogative to change it away from BW. On the contrary, we would no one else to do it.
Here is a horrible little story for you: If Leonardo Da Vinci after finishing the Mona Lisa would have taken a huge read brush and painted one big line over the whole painting in the end, I am sure people would be really unhappy and would like for that line to be removed. Now ignore the fact that for a painting this is much harder to do than for a video game. If anyone but Leonardo would remove that line, I'd also cry "foul" but if people urge Leonardo to do it and he takes pitty on them and does it, in my view, that would be perfectly fine. (at this point, I'd like to apologize for the horrible analogy but I am just trying to get my point across here).
Of course, you can disagree on this and say the read line has to stay, that's fine but at that point I'd like to say that this already shows that "artistic integrity"" is not something objective that everyone has to view in the same way.
If BoiWare wants to listen to the upset fans, they are damn well free to do so in my opinion. You call us entitled for asking, I am saying it is entitled to say we should not due to some abstract concept which is absolutely subjective.

1, When  a director releases a Directors Cut its not at the behest of a consumer who wanted something changed in the original movie, this is a terrible analogy because, its usually to add an additional few mintues to a film that other wise would have stayed on the cutting room floor. 

2. Artistic integrity  is everything when it comes story based games like this, and to validate the "games as art" arguament. Imagine a wrold where people would have said *SPOILER* "Oh Wanderer turning into a baby at the end of Shaow of the Colossus is complete BS, change it" then we get a world were every ending has to be a  happy-pink-easily-explained-bunnies ending and games developed by corporate yes men who work for Fox studios. 

1. When a director releases a sequel to a movie, it is because marketing analysis or customer satisfaction has been deemed necessary and profitable for such a sequel. Books don't get published and art doesn't get put in museums for display unless customers want them. Bioware never said anything about changing the endings. They said they will give us more closure. That is like a director putting out content for behind the scenes or what happens after. This silly notion that you're using as a decoy in a straw man only works for the feeble minded willing to swallow nothing but your word.

2. The content that will give us more closure is also art. Complaining about the fact that art is being received per demand is going against the artistic rights and visions of the artist.

Modifié par Foxhound2121, 22 mars 2012 - 10:43 .

[QwibQwibLover]

Laughing.Man.d8D wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

 1st let me say that this following statement is for older individuals with common sense and the ability to form coherent sentences. Your the ones I am disappointed in, not the 16 year old children who should not even be playing the M rated ME1 from several years ago. What you dont understand is, if Bioware and Casey Hudson have agreed to actually change the ending based on the arguaments, then what has been achieved is the fans have comepletely invalidated Casey Hudson's artistic vision, and video games artistic value as a whole. 

What this means is video games are not art, have no artistic value and are just a product. Movies, books, and other form set to entertain can be claimed as art as such we all can base an opinion on it, but when you demand the artist change it, most times they'll laugh in your face and tell you to sod off because its there art they made it and its your choice to enjoy it or not or buy it or not. When the finished product is comprimised for the sake of the vocal majority of the customers then the product is not an artistic vision but just a product. 

For all those entitled individuals you paid $60-$190 for A game or games. If you do not work for Bioware or the dev team for Mass Effect then you do not have the right to demand story changes. Sure, you made decisions that affected your Shepard but those are decions that were given to you by Casey and the writers, every single piece of fiction has plotholes thats a fact of life. For those who don't like the ending, you have a right to your opinion but when you demand a change, you have over stepped your bounds as a fan and a consumer, and you may singlehandedly destroyed modern story telling in games. 

Thanks for any one who took the time to read all this and Apoligize for length and any spelling or grammatical errors I missed.

http://www.themetaga...oblem-with.html

Bioware dropped the ball in the end.

This article is awesome! Describes my feelings and problems with the ending precisley.....

[AllThatJazz]

Eh, I kind of think Bioware is in a lose/lose situation now. Whichever way they go, they are going to lose some respect. New ending? They are accused of 'caving in' to fan demands and setting an unpleasant precedent for other games, which won't go down well with other developers. They will also continue to face criticism from the mainstream gaming press (who, like it or not, have a powerful voice in the current gaming industry) for compromising 'their' story/art/vision/whatever just to capitulate to fan pressure.

If they don't do something about the ending, then Bioware will have successfully alienated a relatively large number of their core fanbase, and potentially seriously damaged sales of Mass Effect 3, which in turn affects dlc for the title, as well as any future games in the franchise

I do realise that Bethesda introduced alt-ending dlc, so this wouldn't be a precedent in that sense. However, I do not recall it coming in response to this level of rage and type of campaign. From what I remember, a fair few people on the BethSoft forums said 'well, this is a bit pants' and lo, a few months later, Broken Steel. There was no media fuss, no charity drive, no massive controversy. And frankly, do we even know whether Bethesda released Broken Steel as a response to fan dissatisafction at all, or was BS planned all along? It seems likely that it was, given that Bethesda would have a vested interest in allowing people to continue playing in their sandbox. ME3 is different.

I don't like the ending to ME3, and I support the campaign to add alternative endings (though not to completely replace the ending as it stands). After all an optional alt-ending only affects those who wish it to affect them - those who don't want it can keep their experience of ME3 'pure', as the, er, artists originally intended. 
But I am starting to worry that the Retake movement may end up shooting itself in the foot by forcing Bioware to choose between its core fanbase, and the respect and approval of people it considers to be its peers. Which is more critical to the long-term success of the company? Bioware is facing trouble on two fronts, and we still can't be sure which way they will end up going.  

Sorry - I realise this isn't really on topic, just needed to vent

. 

[darkshadow136]

OP: There is no way to give you feedback to improve it, Historical facts just tear your statement to pieces. In order for you to make a concrete argument for your opinions, you must first have historical precedence to make your argument valid. Since there is a long history of precedence that supports altering, changing, or adding to art, it makes your argument invalid.

Modifié par darkshadow136, 22 mars 2012 - 10:50 .

[kegNeggs]

See I don't really see video games as art. Not in the same league as literature, painting, music etc.

Which should NOT mean a producer should produce just "anything" or not go for artsy stuff.

But a videogame is an interactive platform, one that each and every player gets to experience for him/herself.

If the focus had been on artistics, the final chapter should have been a cutscene, w/o any involvement from the player.

But then again, that goes against what mass effect always claimed to stand for: player choice.

my 5p

[Xenite]

Bioware gave up total artistic control from the very first time the player makes a choice that changes his/her path in the game. You don't give the player 100 hours of interactive choices that shape the outcome of a game and then steal it away from them in the last 10 minutes and say "no, it's not about your character anymore!".

It's pathetic that people keep using the "art" excuse, yet they have not a single counter argument to explain the glaring problems at the end of the game. A monkey can throw pooh on a wall and SOMEONE will come by and call it art.

[Phategod1]

Foxhound2121 wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

MrFob wrote...

To the OP:
Ok, first of all, what is artistic integrity? If someone makes a movie and later makes a directors cut, is that compromising the artistic integrity? If writer writes a book and then writes a sequel, that does not adhere what was established in the first one (similar to what the ME3 endings did), that changed things and does that compromise artistic integrity? When Raphael or Michelangelo made alterations to their sculptures and paintings to get the end result we see and admire today because their patrons demanded it, does that corrupt artistic integrity? I find the whole concept very flimsy and an argument on a flimsy basis is never a good idea.
2. How important is artistic integrity and why? Why shouldn't changes be made if they improve the end result? This is a point that IMO is very specific to entertainment art rather then really abstract art. You could argue that the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series compromised the artistic integrity of the original series but still, millions of people enjoyed it immensly and I ask you, is that such a bad thing?
3. And here comes the crucial point, we (as in the fans) do not change the ending! We are telling the artist (BW) that we are not happy with it and that we'd like to see a change/addition. If the ending were to be changed, it would be solely and only BW's decision to do so and they would be the ones to implement the change. It would still be their artistic vision if they wished to do so. We are asking for that, but we are not proposing to take the prerogative to change it away from BW. On the contrary, we would no one else to do it.
Here is a horrible little story for you: If Leonardo Da Vinci after finishing the Mona Lisa would have taken a huge read brush and painted one big line over the whole painting in the end, I am sure people would be really unhappy and would like for that line to be removed. Now ignore the fact that for a painting this is much harder to do than for a video game. If anyone but Leonardo would remove that line, I'd also cry "foul" but if people urge Leonardo to do it and he takes pitty on them and does it, in my view, that would be perfectly fine. (at this point, I'd like to apologize for the horrible analogy but I am just trying to get my point across here).
Of course, you can disagree on this and say the read line has to stay, that's fine but at that point I'd like to say that this already shows that "artistic integrity"" is not something objective that everyone has to view in the same way.
If BoiWare wants to listen to the upset fans, they are damn well free to do so in my opinion. You call us entitled for asking, I am saying it is entitled to say we should not due to some abstract concept which is absolutely subjective.

1, When  a director releases a Directors Cut its not at the behest of a consumer who wanted something changed in the original movie, this is a terrible analogy because, its usually to add an additional few mintues to a film that other wise would have stayed on the cutting room floor. 

2. Artistic integrity  is everything when it comes story based games like this, and to validate the "games as art" arguament. Imagine a wrold where people would have said *SPOILER* "Oh Wanderer turning into a baby at the end of Shaow of the Colossus is complete BS, change it" then we get a world were every ending has to be a  happy-pink-easily-explained-bunnies ending and games developed by corporate yes men who work for Fox studios. 

1. When a director releases a sequel to a movie, it is because marketing analysis or customer satisfaction has been deemed necessary and profitable for such a sequel. Books don't get published and art doesn't get put in museums for display unless customers want them. Bioware never said anything about changing the endings. They said they will give us more closure. That is like a director putting out content for behind the scenes or what happens after. This silly notion that you're using as a decoy in a straw man only works for the feeble minded willing to swallow nothing but your word.

2. The content that will give us more closure is also art. Complaining about the fact that art is being received per demand is going against the artistic rights and visions of the artist.

Yeah But niether me or the person I was quoting mentioned anything about sequels We were discussing -DIRECTORS CUTS_ and there correlation to this particular situation. But to your second point if the content that is coming Is simply and explanation of what happend I'm fine with this as long its done with actually added gameplay, My concern is what some have called the "slippery slope" where  Bioware would do nothing more then create some type of happy ending and completely discard the original ending that set a terrible precedent. for the "Slippery Slope".

Modifié par Phategod1, 22 mars 2012 - 10:57 .

[Tamcia]

Video game is an interactive platform. It would be art if it would consist of watching and not doing anything yourself. When I invest time, money, emotions and effort, it goes to a whole different level than a book. Even books - just look at how many good authors changed their books because fans were displeased - it is not something new.

If anything - Fallout 3 was way before ME3.

Key element - player choice.

[Aurica]

LOL OP.. what the heck are you talking about.  I hardly call the endings artistic in anyform.  It reeks of rushed job or bad writing.

Especially when you take into consideration that...
1. The game was advertise as if our choice mattered when it really didn't
2. The ending had so much plot holes that could sink an aircraft carrier

I don't much care whether Shepard lives or dies as long as the ending made sense.  As far as I'm concerned it doesn't and feels pretty much forced or tacked on.

Modifié par Aurica, 22 mars 2012 - 10:59 .

[Coolfaec]

A video game is a product, nobody has ever said it was art before this, you can't just make up facts and then have them instantly be correct.

Bioware falsely advertised their game to their fans, that's not only immoral, but also illegal.

[Laughing.Man.d8D]

QwibQwibLover wrote...

Laughing.Man.d8D wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

 1st let me say that this following statement is for older individuals with common sense and the ability to form coherent sentences. Your the ones I am disappointed in, not the 16 year old children who should not even be playing the M rated ME1 from several years ago. What you dont understand is, if Bioware and Casey Hudson have agreed to actually change the ending based on the arguaments, then what has been achieved is the fans have comepletely invalidated Casey Hudson's artistic vision, and video games artistic value as a whole. 

What this means is video games are not art, have no artistic value and are just a product. Movies, books, and other form set to entertain can be claimed as art as such we all can base an opinion on it, but when you demand the artist change it, most times they'll laugh in your face and tell you to sod off because its there art they made it and its your choice to enjoy it or not or buy it or not. When the finished product is comprimised for the sake of the vocal majority of the customers then the product is not an artistic vision but just a product. 

For all those entitled individuals you paid $60-$190 for A game or games. If you do not work for Bioware or the dev team for Mass Effect then you do not have the right to demand story changes. Sure, you made decisions that affected your Shepard but those are decions that were given to you by Casey and the writers, every single piece of fiction has plotholes thats a fact of life. For those who don't like the ending, you have a right to your opinion but when you demand a change, you have over stepped your bounds as a fan and a consumer, and you may singlehandedly destroyed modern story telling in games. 

Thanks for any one who took the time to read all this and Apoligize for length and any spelling or grammatical errors I missed.

http://www.themetaga...oblem-with.html

Bioware dropped the ball in the end.

This article is awesome! Describes my feelings and problems with the ending precisley.....

Yup that's why I linked it. It defined my feeling exactly, put it into words that I failed to articulate. Spread it around, I'm sure others are looking for some understanding as well.

[RedTail F22]

Aweus wrote...

DESTRAUDO wrote...

Not because i say so, because the game and the ones before it very intentionally forced those situations with non optimal outcomes and no one has complained about any of the others. The entire concept of the ME3 is sacrifice. The game is loaded with sacrifice, and has multiple choke points where sacrifice is all but guaranteed, in some places guaranteed.  If you added in options throughout the game for happy happy the entire theme of the game goes zoom out the window. The dream sequences where you are haunted by comments from those that sacrificed themselves. Zoom gone. The emotional impact of defeating kai lang, zoom gone. Absolute freedom for optimal choices will never be given because it would crush the narrative on which the game is hung. 

Then how would you explain that me and multiple other people (just look around) are CRUSHED with the current narrative? If the narrative is so perfect, why are people angry/sad over it? Is it becouse we are idiots and idiots dont understand true valors? Even more so, idiots do not deserve anything becouse they are not worthy by definition? I am sorry, but the only explanation of your argument is that you are regarding me and my kin as mentally handicapped individuals. Good riddance. And if not, I still dont understand why you are against changes that will CHANGE NOTHING for your Mass Effect experience and make low intelligence life-forms like me happy? What you are basically saying is like: "I like oranges best, apples should never be present in our kitchen becouse then it would be possible to not eat oranges which would crush the wonderful taste of oranges. People who likes apples are irrelevant, make them eat oranges or let them die from starvation."

omg lmao. Great Analogy

[DuncanId]

Probably this was said before but...

Rewriting character personalities in the las 10 minutes without reason ruins conventional storytelling.
Changing scenarios in the last 10 minutes without reason ruins conventional storytelling.
Changing the antagonists motivations without reason ruins conventional storytelling.
The lack of closure at all levels ruins conventional storytelling.
Conventional storytelling doesn't allow for a consumer's choice driven story.
People asking the storyteller to change something because after all the storytelled tells the story for the people and not for himself, was allways part of conventional storytelling.
Conventional storytelling has the same lack of meaning as "victorious and uplifting" does.
Acording to theirs statements about how the endingS would be, they changed the "artistic vision" at some point.
As a bussiness, the only "artistic vision" they really respect is "$$$"