807 réponses à ce sujet

[Phategod1]

One thing, I've learned with the few PM i received is that I Actually had a beta Key to SWTOR and I never knew about It. DAMN IT.

[Skyline45]

Nefelius wrote...

Tell that to Doyle and Fallout 3 team.

^This

Also, tell that to the team of Prince of Persia....

Your feeble attemps at trolling are futile....

[Mister Mida]

Raezaiel wrote...

the hobbit

Damn, I totally forgot that one. Good call

[stasiux]

People didn't like the ending, so they voiced their opinion. As far as I know, nobody went to Bioware with a gun to force them to change/expand the ending. I think Bioware has made an informed decision that, when so many people dislike the conclusion, maybe they should change it or explain it more. Nobody forced anybody to do anything.

[Joccaren]

Sorry, but know. Art has been changed in the past, and it will be in the future, to please the fans. This isn't art for arts sake, this is a commissioned piece to move sales - and that's all it will be for as long as it is produced under the name of a big publisher. That carries expectations with it, that we do not feel have been rewarded.
In reality, we are saving future game story telling. IMO Bioware tells some of the best stories. By making them change the ending, we ensure that we will still buy from them. Had we just left and walked off, they would have lost a lot of business, and may not have had sufficient funds or support to make other truly great games.
Sometimes, things need to change. When what they say, and what we expect, isn't what we get, we will complain. We should complain. We should get a response, and as long as we bought this, we should be favoured.

Games are still art. Art is commissioned, and if that commissioned art isn't what the commissioner asked for, they'll need to change it or hand over the money they were payed for it. If a game dev makes a game for the sake of making art, then that is art that you can defend in this way. If they try to move it as a sale to earn money, you really can't.

[ThePlatypus]

Do collaborative works of art not count as art?  I'd say that the community involvement -- or outcry -- is rather an attempt at a collaborative work of art between the developer's version and the community's expections.

This does not invalidate ME3 as a work of art.  The original will still always exist -- history cannot change that.  It just means that the original 'could be' the base for which changes will come from.  Both exist at different stages of development in this work of "art."

[BARRAGE 74]

Phategod1 wrote...

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. 

Yes, his English teacher should be very upset.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Phategod1 wrote...

PrussianBlue wrote...

Why not change something if it becomes better in the process? Of course, there is the possibility to make things worse (George Lucas) but I think in this case you should say gtfo to this art thing because the endings as they are right now make now sense and aren´t art at all.

Its not your judgement in its quality that makes it art, its the entire original vision the teams that created the ME universe. Who decided if its better, What Im saying is when someone makes you change what deem perfect or at least finished integrity is lossed. 

As someone else pointed out, they don't have to sell their product. If artistic integrity matters that much to them, they can have it, though at the cost of the loyalty/future sales of many hardcore fans. That's the whole conundrum of the starving artist: you can make what you want, or what the market wants. Sometimes the two will coincide, most times it won't.

[ShadowSoldier89]

I do believe that games are art, but "Artistic Integrity" does not save you from scrutiny when you write an ending that is completely full of plot holes, abandons established lore, and provides actions taht are completely out of character

"Artistic Integrity" in this case would be fixing this problem, not leaving it.

[Koolgool]

Yeah... um... Mass Effect has never been conventional in its storytelling in the past, why start now?

And using the art as an excuse is really irritating to me. What they delivered was an unfinished product... I don't see that as art.

Modifié par Koolgool, 22 mars 2012 - 12:26 .

[bkjmaverick]

Playing the third game, I honestly believed that this was one of the best games I've ever played. I loved every bit of it, right up until the final 5 minutes when nothing made sense, and your choices culminated in absolutely no difference whatsoever. I've not voted in polls or anything, even my friends who've had the game said the ending was terrible. It's not about being entitled to a better ending, its about a fantastic trilogy that deserves more than what it got.

[suusuuu]

bleh, another one of these threads

[Dave3172]

The art defense doesn't really apply here because Bioware went into these games explicitly saying that the gamer was also a part of the story. That their choices, their decisions, were going to be reflected in how the story developed.

Painters don't promise you that you'll get to hold the brush. Authors don't promise you a turn at the typewriter. But when you promise gamers a large degree of freedom in effecting change in a gaming environment, you surrender a large part of the "it's art" defense. And you open yourself up to what has happened here.

[Computron2000]

linsanity wrote...
Last not least. This is a mass marketed product. calling it art is a compliment but not legally accurate.

Think this just hit the nail on the head. If the mass manufactured alarm clock you buy art? If so, every single thing is art, up to and including Windows ME and Vista. Thus no one should complain about Windows even if they give you the blue screen of death because it Microsoft's artistic vision.

[Oryonn]

Computron2000 wrote...

linsanity wrote...
Last not least. This is a mass marketed product. calling it art is a compliment but not legally accurate.

Think this just hit the nail on the head. If the mass manufactured alarm clock you buy art? If so, every single thing is art, up to and including Windows ME and Vista. Thus no one should complain about Windows even if they give you the blue screen of death because it Microsoft's artistic vision.

Exactly.

[DiegoProgMetal]

I can't read through the 13 pages (at least while I'm writing this, there is still 13 pages), but big buget Hollywood movies usually are shown to an audience of random people before the release to get feedback. MANY movies have been entirely rewritten due to bad feedback.
Video games are an INTERACTIVE media. Movies are NOT. If entire movies can be changed, why not video games? (It took me more than an hour to write this because I'm at work)

[SamFlagg]

Here is what I don't understand.

Why is the fact that it is a product change it's possible artistic value?

And then on top of that, why is the possibility it can be changed suddenly make it not art?


If I recall my history correctly most artists that have had their works survive through the ages had patrons who paid them to do things.  Keep the patron happy, you keep getting paid.  Make the patron unhappy, that's all well and good.  Your paychecks start to dry up.

[Shinobu]

You're welcome.

Calling something "art" doesn't mean it's automatically exempt from criticism. Ever heard of art critics?

You are correct, the creator of a work has the right to decide NOT to change their work if they want. However, if they want to sell more of their "art," they need to take the opinions of the consumers into account. If Bioware wants to stand on principle and defend their "artistic vision" they can do so. However, that would be a financial mistake. Gutsy, but ultimately self-destructive.

Also, even in the context of "art" the ending was pretty terrible. It's not the Seventh Seal by any stretch of the imagination.

[dkear1]

The art defense is just a lazy cop out. The product stands or falls based on public opinion. EA doesn't give a fly's fart about anything but money so if the demand for change looks to have an effect on their bottom line then like it or not they will make the change.

What I really have a hard time understanding, is the folks that like the ending being upset at those that don't. You have your ending. If a change does happen it will be in the form of a dlc or patch that you would not be forced into installing. So why do you even care?

As to the OP: Way to make generalized blame statements! Yea, our retake mass effect can also be blamed for global warming so feel free to add that to your post.

Modifié par dkear1, 22 mars 2012 - 12:40 .

[Billabong2011]

See my signature.

[Aesieru]

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.

No offense, but their ending and the new overlying plot isn't really artistic or original.  It is a carbon copy of some older works done that they gave no credit to and just changed the labels for.

Also, tons of things in the development process or production process mandate necessary changes, money being one of them, corporate being another.

[SvRec]

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...

>older individuals with ... the ability to form coherent sentences 
>Your the ones

Stopped reading right there

Modifié par SvRec, 22 mars 2012 - 12:44 .

[Book buster]

Here's the thing about movies: people demand that movies are changed all the time. The great majority of films undergo some sort of test-screening process, wherein a nearly-final cut of the film is shown to potential viewers to gauge their reaction and see if the film is engendering the desired one. Edits are then made based on the feedback this audience gives - a joke is cut, a dramatic moment extended... In extreme cases, scenes might even be re-shot, or the structure of the film itself might change.

Likewise, literature typically undergoes some sort of external review process, bouncing back and forth between author and editors several times before the involved parties are satisfied that the product is ready for public release. The end result won't be the author's pure, unadulterated vision, but, in the majority of cases, it will be much, much better for the process.

One of the problems with video games, in their quest to become considered 'art', is that they are very rarely subject to this kind of external review prior to release. Everything is done in-house, or by contractors. Storyw? In-house writing team. Art assests? In-house art team. Play-testing? In-house bug-finding team. Of all the major gaming studios, only Valve is known for sourcing external criticism prior to release, and then modifying their game and game story based on that feedback. At one stage, according to what's been released post-development, you weren't going to play as Chell in Portal 2. That went down with playtesters like a lead balloon so, back in came Chell. And Portal 2 is better for it. The same with their originally envisioned gameplay mechanism - it was an awesome mechanism, but their playsters wondered why Valve was calling it Portal when it very obviously wasn't Portal, so back in came portals and we'll wait and see if they spin off their awesome gameplay mechanism into another awesome IP.

Modifié par Book buster, 22 mars 2012 - 12:47 .

[havoc373]

personaly what i see happaning in this ending DLC is quite simply a directors cut type of situation.
more scenes that help explain things a bit more. that is all i wanted.
and I am sorry to dissapoint you OP but at the end of the day, movie's do these kinds of things all the time. so why not games.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Shinobu wrote...

You're welcome.

Calling something "art" doesn't mean it's automatically exempt from criticism. Ever heard of art critics?

You are correct, the creator of a work has the right to decide NOT to change their work if they want. However, if they want to sell more of their "art," they need to take the opinions of the consumers into account. If Bioware wants to stand on principle and defend their "artistic vision" they can do so. However, that would be a financial mistake. Gutsy, but ultimately self-destructive.

Also, even in the context of "art" the ending was pretty terrible. It's not the Seventh Seal by any stretch of the imagination.

"Decisions with consequences" and all that. We offer to Bioware what they refused to give us.