807 réponses à ce sujet

[Beta-Breech]

GammaRayJim wrote...

Beta-Breech wrote...

GammaRayJim wrote...

Beta-Breech wrote...

GammaRayJim wrote...

Wow it really boggles my mind that people can honestly compare themselves to the Catholic Church who commissioned/hired Micheangelo to paint/sculpt ect... to themselves as having hired BioWare to write/produce ME3. The Church as said patron had every right to determine what the artwork would represent because they approved preliminary sketches. Please don't think that he just painted whatever he felt like.

Quit deluding yourselves you didn't hire them you purchased their mass produced artwork. Much like buying a poster of said famous work of art you bought a copy of someones artistic vision and because you don't like the ending you feel ripped off. But no one forced you to buy it and you in no way hired them to make it for you, you chose to go along for the ride.

While we the fans didn't commision this work, we funded it by buying the previous games and keeping the company alive.  If we stopped buying their games, DLC and products they would not of been able to make this game.   It's a buyers market and shock horror the buyers aren't happy with a product because it's not as advertised.   

When it comes down to games and the story they tell a cruicial part of it, is the way it ends.  It has to be consistent to be considered good, it has to have some level of rationallity to match the world it's been set in.  The ending doesn't have either of these things.   It wouldn't matter if everyone died, or if the galaxy was destroyed, just as long as it was damn consistent.  

If I didn't enjoy the Gears of war style multiplayer (which is neither artistic or that interesting in the way it was developed)  I would of returned the game and got my money back.    Don't delude yourself that the buyers don't control the market.  It happens when fans of a series make requests or are unhappy with a product.  What this is, is a product that contains some artistic merit, but it's a product none the less.  

What you're forgetting is with music, and books we can sample them without having to put money on the table first.   We can decided wether or not we want to contribute to the artists developement and help fund their next endevor.  With games we can't do that, so they're more of a product than anything else.  

What you are describing is consumerism which is not the same or should ever be confused with the commissioning of artwork. A commissioned artist is hired to produce artwork preapproved by the commissioner. Yes by buying previous titles from BioWare we kept them in business but in no way does that constitute the commissioning of future games.

I am not delude in not believing that buyers control the market, but we do that by not purchasing products from companies that don't consistently deliver what we are looking for and not by demanding that the company changes its product. That being said as I stated in an earlier post it is ok to criticise and complain and should the company choose to change something based on that so be it, but to think in some way we earned that right out of commission is ridiculous.

As the case of music sure you can sample but that doesn't mean you will be happy with the entire album. Reading a few chapters in a book will no way tell you how the book will end, if you like a few chapters you can choose go for the ride where the author wants to take you. With games we do have a chance at times with the release of demo's but again no demo is going to tell you how it ends. Movies release trailers showing the most exciting parts of the movie in the hopes of getting you to go see it and sometimes the trailer is the only good part of the movie.

The only way you truly have control over the content is if you choose to purchase and play. People don't like the way this story ended, not how the game played but how their emotional attachment to Shepard did not meet with their expectations...so be it, it happens a lot in life.

Sorry missed this post in the torrid of replies shortly after!  

Firstly Bioware stated from the start of the ME series that it would be a triliogy.  If we hadn't of put money into the previous two games the third wouldn't of got there.  So in a way we did commision the work through driving the sales up giving glowing fan reviews, recommending it and putting our money into the company.

If ME1 had been a flop do you really think that we would of got to this stage?    If an artist promises to deliver something after being paid to do so and then fail to deliver the person who commisions them  generally request that the art be changed to meet with what they've been paid for.  

Bioware flat out promised us that the story would end in a way that made sense, a way that would tie up the loose ends.  More importantly they promised us that there wouln't be "set endings".     Don't get me wrong I'm not one of these people demanding the ending be changed, rather asking.     

In terms of music and books:   With music you can sample entire albums for free thanks to spotify but with limited repeat play obviously, with books you can go to a library and read them.   When a games developer has been consistently awesome with a series like Bioware has you expect the final chapter to be brilliant.  You base what you've seen them do before on what this final ending will be.    With most movies these days you can tell if the movie is going to be terrible by the trailer.  

I've said it before, but I couldn't care if my Shepard died, or if everyone died. Hell it's a war setting.  I wasn't expecting a happy ending and nor would I want one.   Just as long as it made sense and stood true to the universe Bioware have created.    It really feels like George Lucas has had a hand in the making of this third outing at the end.   Not the GL who created the originals with the help of others telling him what is frankly awful, but the GL that had full control and no one to stop him from writing prequels that are so full of plot holes, an entire planet could fit through them.    
As many have said before, none of this would matter if Bioware said from the start there was a set ending and not faulsly promised something they couldn't deliver.   

I still have trouble with people considering this a commissioned piece of work. Did revenues from previous sales allow them to continue the series sure. If the first one sucked we would not be having this discussion, look at all the movies that were set up to be continued and because the first one flopped the others never got made. If you read a book in the library are you then going to go buy it? Music sure I can see you doing that but not a book. Do I wish the ending was better absolutely, but I also don't think a new or revised one is entirely needed.

That's fair enough, it's your point of view and opinion after all, I'm not going to argue that.  I'm just sharing mine.  


When it comes to books I absolutely check some of them out of the library first.   If I find it so good that I find that I want to read it over and over again I buy them.  I've done this with quite a few books, some of which are quite shallow and predicitable such as some of the Chris Ryan books, but still fun to read.    

This is my point with this final game being more of a product than a piece of art:

There are some truly amazing moments in the game that reflect art and some touching symbolism in parts.  But there are a lot of plot points that have holes and totally ignore the way the previous games were made.   In my opinion EA is to blame for some of this by forcing things and rushing them.

I mean can we really think of what KOTOR and the first ME would be like if EA had of been at the reigns at that point? It just seems like BW forgot at the end of this game that having many possiblities and different scenes at the end of the story matters to us fans.     It's what we've come to expect and what they've been very consistent in delivering thus far.

The fact they cut some beautiful dialog with Anderson towards the end that would of been perfect for either a tragic ending (making things truly artistic in it's sadness) or a happy one.      

[Wolven_Soul]

Oh boy, another artistic integrity arguement.  I'll tell you what I have told everyone else like you.  When they advertised that we would be getting a certain thing, and then did not give what they advertised, we as the consumers have the right to come here and voice our discontent and ask for a change. 

Because while ME3 may be art, it is at the same time, a product.  When someone does not give you the product that they say they will give you, that is wrong.

[ScriptDiver]

Art will always take the back seat of market economy. Thinking differently is being incredibly naive. When a company creates a product aimed for mass consumption the bottom line is to earn money. Calling it art is certainly positive, and it means the producers really succeeded, but it will always be in the eye of the beholder. A large company has many, many, many more worries than the lone artist. Revenue rules this world we live in, whether you like it or not.

I for one think it is a positive change through all this that the consumer is actually put back in the loop when it comes to the videogame industry - from which we have been barred for far to long. Empowerment of the consumer will only make things better in the end, certainly not ruin anything.

[Canned Bullets]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

You can change art you know, just saying.

Yeah, art is malleable. Charles Dickens and Sir Arthur Conan Boyle have changed the endings of their novels and Bethesda changed the ending to Fallout 3 by adding the Broken Steel expansion.

Mass Effect's ending being changed would neither be groundbreaking nor disastrous because Bethesda did the same without any repercussions. The only difference is that the ending controversy has garnered more attention than the ending controversy with Fallout 3.

[OntologicalShock]

 As an artist and indie game dev, my opinion might have slightly more weight about it than an illiterate dustbowl farmer from the 1920's regarding games as art. In my humble opinion, games are not art. Games contain vast amounts of art, but they are not art as a whole unit. An amusement park ride is not art, nor is the Windows operating system; though many aspects of each would be considered so. If a set of proposed logos, thumbnail sketches, story drafts, etc. can be rejected from inclusion or utilization in a product, presentation, advertizing campaign, etc. then so too can 15 minutes of gameplay be excised and replaced. 

The ending of this game, when considered as a piece of art, is inappropriate for this story — in my opinion, of course.  The only artistic vision being compromised is the vision of the author(s) of the extant ending(s), and many artists that contributed to this and previous Mass Effect titles have seen their contributions rejected; it is part of the process.

TL;DR: Games comprise pieces of art, but do not cohere as a singular piece of art; they resemble more a themed gallery than a single work (even a multi-faceted one like a tryptych or mural).

 [edit: fixed some grammar]

Modifié par OntologicalShock, 23 mars 2012 - 01:32 .

[Beta-Breech]

OntologicalShock wrote...

 As an artist and indie game dev, my opinion might have slightly more weight about it than an illiterate dustbowl farmer from the 1920's regarding games as art. In my humble opinion, games are not art. Games contain vast amounts of art, but they are not art as a whole unit. An amusement park ride is not art, nor is the Windows operating system; though many aspects of each would be considered so. If a set of proposed logos, thumbnail sketches, story drafts, etc. can be rejected from inclusion or utilization in a product, presentation, advertizing campaign, etc. then so too can 15 minutes of gameplay be excised and replaced. 

The ending of this game, when considered as a piece of art, is inappropriate for this story — in my opinion, of course.  The only artistic vision being compromised is the vision of the author(s) of the extant ending(s), and many artists that contributed to this and previous Mass Effect titles have seen their contributions rejected; it is part of the process.

TL;DR: Games comprise pieces of art, but do not cohere as a singular piece of art; they resemble more a themed gallery than a single work (even a multi-faceted one like a tryptych or mural).

 [edit: fixed some grammar]

Thank you!  I was trying to slowly get to that point but sleep deprivation has gotten the better of me.  :happy:

[LegatoSkyheart]

Ruined?
I'm sorry sir, but I'd like to think of this as calling out Bioware on their Bull and asking them to do what they said they would do! 

This game is all about CHOICE, YOUR CHOICE.

No other Media has actually done anything like this, None to my knowledge, many people may have complained about LOST or The Sapranos endings, but Really They didn't have a choice in the matter, That was a Story being fed to them.

This Story however is/was being made BY THE USER. There was supposed to be MULTIPLE ENDINGS THAT WERE UNIQUE TO ONE'S CHARACTER.

Mass Effect was a game of "These are your Choices!" not "This is your Choice."

[Ryan546]

Many people have invested 100's of hours in this trilogy, It's more than a movie that takes 3 hours of your life or a painting you view for a matter of minutes. Hell even a TV show or book you are less involved in. We were under the false impression that what we did mattered. NOTHING, NOT A SINGLE CHOICE can effect the outcome of the game. ME is more than art and we need them to change it.

[OntologicalShock]

OntologicalShock wrote...

 As an artist and indie game dev, my opinion might have slightly more weight about it than an illiterate dustbowl farmer from the 1920's regarding games as art. In my humble opinion, games are not art. Games contain vast amounts of art, but they are not art as a whole unit. An amusement park ride is not art, nor is the Windows operating system; though many aspects of each would be considered so. If a set of proposed logos, thumbnail sketches, story drafts, etc. can be rejected from inclusion or utilization in a product, presentation, advertizing campaign, etc. then so too can 15 minutes of gameplay be excised and replaced. 

The ending of this game, when considered as a piece of art, is inappropriate for this story — in my opinion, of course.  The only artistic vision being compromised is the vision of the author(s) of the extant ending(s), and many artists that contributed to this and previous Mass Effect titles have seen their contributions rejected; it is part of the process.

TL;DR: Games comprise pieces of art, but do not cohere as a singular piece of art; they resemble more a themed gallery than a single work (even a multi-faceted one like a tryptych or mural).

 [edit: fixed some grammar]

Also: I feel the need to point out that I wasn't calling the OP and 'illiterate dustbowl farmer from the 1920's', merely crafting a humorous image. So no insult intended, OP!

[Aedera]

To the original authors point, as a consumer, I can do and say anything I want about a product once I pay for it as it is my opinion. If bioware had come up with a product that was acceptable to the masses, there is no retake movement.

If GM makes a crappy car, consumers have a right to complain and demand something or just not buy the product. Go ahead and argue that a car is not art. MANY owners of classic Cameros would adamantly disagree.

It is not so much that the ending was bad. I mean, it is in my and many others opinions. It was all the interviews by Hudson, gamble and others that hyped the game, specifically the ending that leads to some level of false promises. Was I going to believe every blurb they said as gospel? No. But there was so much talk about the ending that letting the inconsistent and plot hole ridden mess stand without raising concern wouldn't and shouldnt fly.

If you like ending, good for you. If you are offended that people demanded change, well once you sell your product to consumers, if it is subpar, you have to be able to accept criticism. Honestly, bioware could tell us to eff off changes stay but that would be suicide. They know they need to fix the problem or lose a large number of fans.

Business is business even when that business is "art" or not.

Modifié par Aedera, 23 mars 2012 - 01:50 .

[sistersafetypin]

Anyone who's taken any literature class in any university knows you do not introduce new ideas that aren't backed up in the rest of your story in its conclusion...

[bossk-office]

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.

But a game is not a book, or a movie. Consumers can be more invested, a different kind of invested, in the story of a game than in the story of a book or movie – because we’re acting out a story instead of just taking in a story that someone else is telling us.

Problematically, many people (even many who care deeply about gaming) don’t want to realize this still today: they see older forms of storytelling as superior and want to strive for such forms in games too, even if it’s not right for the medium.

If we have now somehow ruined conventional storytelling in games, I’m all the happier for it, since games are not in fact a medium of conventional storytelling and the sooner people realize this the better. If you’ve ever played pen-and-paper RPGs you know that gaming is a whole different beast, with a whole different relationship between players and DM than between movie goers and filmmaker. A whole different give and take.

I mean, if my DM back in the day pulled a Mass Effect 3 on me I punched him in the face – for real. (Not an exaggeration.) Had he then brought up ”artistic integrity”, I would have punched him again, harder. Compared to that physical violence of my youth, forum backlash against Bioware is actually quite civilized. But it’s the same type of emotions at play, triggered by a very similar type of storytelling in a not dissimilar medium.

Storytelling in games is a big debate and obviously I’m firmly on one side of the fence. 

[John Locke N7]

its something i buy, and its something i want to enjoy. if its not that than its a failer.

you can take your labels and your "art" and shove them.

video games are toys

[gmboy902]

Original? Artistic vision?

If I have helped prevent endings like this from ever happening again, then I consider it a huge victory.

It isn't a message to BioWare saying "Don't branch out", it's saying "Actually test your endings with third parties and reconsider them multiple times before release, and make sure they fulfill your pre-launch promises".

Besides, these endings aren't original.

[wook77]

GammaRayJim wrote...

wook77 wrote...

GammaRayJim wrote...

wook77 wrote...

[*SNIPPING IT ALL cause of quote pyramid*]

[snip some more]

[and more]

Well as a matter of fact I am Catholic and had twleve years of a Catholic education, although I am currently non practicing. Not that this has anything to do with what I am trying to say about commissioned versus off the rack. You can argue semantics about whether or not the priest and bishops at the time were considered the church or not but I won't. They all belonged to the same organization and thus had a right to say what they wanted to see. 

The Star Wars vs Spaceball poster is an apples and oranges debate if something was labelled Star Wars and you got Spaceballs then by all means complain, take it back, get a refund. But when I plugged in my copy of Mass Effect 3 there was Shepard and the gang fighting Cerebus and the Reapers, not sure what you took home and played. A crappy ending does not stop it from being Mass Effects.

They provided an ending why is everyone so quick to assume that because of rumors on the internet (where we know that everything on here is the truth) of another ending that didn't get written it means we were somehow duped. Everyone claims that great material is only that way because of editting how do we know that that was an ending that was editted out because it worked even worse than this one. "The Rescue" implies a happy ending and so I wrongly assumed it was what you were looking for, my aplogies won't happen again. I will take issue with the fact that you feel that people are entitled to a happy ending. Happy ending don't always happen.

And lastly when I think of organizations I think of the people in them and not just the logo my mistake for thinking that everyone believed that organizations are made up of people who come and go. Won't make that one again either.

A crappy ending stopped it from being what I was sold. I was sold a certain bill of goods, by the hype machine, that I did not get. That hype-machine-promised ending is what I partially bought the game for and I did not get the hype machine ending. It's not apples and oranges - both have similar characters, similar themes and similar dialog but, in the end, the goal is completely different. I do not want the ending of Spaceballs spliced into my Star Wars, I want Star Wars.

I do not want to see Aragorn running into that battle only to have that scene be interrupted with a "Buy our DLC, coming soon!" message. I want to see the ring ending up in the fire. My opinion is that, no, they didn't provide an ending. They provided half of the ending, there is no denouement. We see the mass relays blow and then... inexplicable people stepping out of a crashed Normandy with no explanation. There is no resolution, only more questions.

Also - really? You say you aren't going to assume and then... literally the next sentence, you assume. Again.  I never said that people are entitled to a happy ending. I said that they were entitled to think that they should have a happy ending.

Beyond that, though, what is wrong with a happy ending? Would the Odyssey have been a better story with a sad ending? Would Star Wars? Would Star Trek? Would Percy Jackson? Would Harry Potter? Would Dragon Age? Would Assassin's Creed? Even Jesus's story ends on a "happy" note with the way that he rises from the dead. Happy endings aren't necessarily bad endings. A happy ending shows that all that suffering was worth it, in the end. It reiterates that life triumphs, even in the face of despair and loss. That's why people cheer the heroes in real life as well as video games and movies and books. A good article on what I'm trying to say: http://www.smithsoni...essimistic.html

Finally, I don't think of the people in the organization because I know that the views of the organization does not reflect the views of each of the people. The views of the Catholic Church are not the views of each of its members and its priests just as the views of BioWare and EA are not the views of each employee. That's why the game has BioWare stamped on the outside and not every employee of the organization that had a hand in creating the game all over the outside of the box. That's why Mike Gamble and Casey Hudson and all the rest of the "faces" of a variety of organizations have disclaimers on their Twitter profiles that the views of the individual may not reflect the views of the organization. It's naive to think that the views of each person clearly mirror the views of the organization as a whole.

The people aren't what I buy BioWare games for because they do come and go. I buy BioWare games because they are much better about equality than many other gaming houses. Just because they do practice a lot of equality doesn't mean that I won't react as a customer to not getting the complete game. I love David Gaider but I don't buy Dragon Age because he helped write it, I buy Dragon Age because I like the game and the fact that I can have an LGBT relationship in it as either a man or a woman. Just because David Gaider might leave doesn't mean that I would stop buying BioWare games.

[kailiea]

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.

As a consumer it is my right and duty to effect change on products that do not meet my needs.  If we as consumers
did not do that, nothing would ever change

As with any art, the creator is ultimately accountable to the one who has comissioned it. As a retired animator
and art teacher I have had to change comissioned work to meet the expectations of my customer many times.

When your in the business of selling work to a large audience you will have to bend to their needs and desires. 
You do that because your trying to sell a product to widest market audience. Art that has been consumed by the
masses has always been changed to meet the needs of it's consumer base.  This thread has provided many examples
altered pieces of fiction and film and even video games.


Fan outcry over a video games ending is not new and this debate has been heard before. Fallout 3 creators
acquiesced to fans demands on a expanded ending and we recieved Broken Steel as DLC.

The industry did not implode and artistic integrity remained intact. There are certain journalists that
seem to think that this moment will bring down the industry and stifle creative freedom within the studios.
I would argue that the opposite will happen as evidenced by Skyrim which was an amazing game. I would imagine the
lessons learned by the studio in their previous title helped build a stronger product.

This is the moment where we as gamers,fans and customers must stand up and constructively criticize a product
we feel is not up to par. As a customer who paid for the product we have a vested interest in seeing our needs
met as it was advertised. The vast majority of the "Take Back" movement has been civil and respectful in
their criticisms and you can find some inciteful pieces littering the BSN boards and elesewhere.

Adding DLC does not effect your end game experience because it is something you don't have to download. However
DLC that favors our needs would certainly go towards alleviating our frustrations as consumers and fans.

If Bioware is truly in this to please their fanbase and make us co-creators in our our/their stories, than maybe
the criticism are waranted and have merit?

 Sometimes artistic vision can blind the artist to the flaws inherent within the piece because they have spent
so much time working on it.  Perhaps an alternate opinion and view was needed in order to iron out those flaws,
which one can find in all creative endeavours.

[Ryven]

They make the art. I like the art except for the ending. Now I can no longer trust them to make the art that I like, therefore I tell them that I will no longer purchase said art.

Should they choose to fix the art they currently have available then I will continue to support their art. If not then I will not.

I'm not being entitled. I am giving them a chance to continue to have me as a customer. It is me making a business choice. No one is holding them at gunpoint saying "Make this like this or you will die". No. We are simply stating that we will no longer support their "Art" unless the art appeals to us.

[Sisterofshane]

sistersafetypin wrote...

Anyone who's taken any literature class in any university knows you do not introduce new ideas that aren't backed up in the rest of your story in its conclusion...

This.  So many times this.  So many people want to compare this to paintings and sculptures, but I feel that this type of enterprise is more comparative to live Theatre.

Imagine if you will, you have bought tickets to a play, one that promises to thrill, inspire and engage the audience.  Acts one and two are everything to be expected (bearing in mind that some will rave, others will be unimpressed, but all will generally agree that the story has been played well).  The third act of the story is living up to the expectations of the first two, maybe even surpassing them in quality.  Then, in the final minutes of the play, the actors begin to act in manners contrary to their established characters.  New questions and ideas and characters are introduced, and then the show abruptly ends, leaving some of the most interesting story arcs without closure.  The dialogue is ambiguous, and the setting is unfamiliar and downright confusing.  The lights fade to black, and the curtain closes.  Still trying to adjust to this change of pace, the audience stands up, begins the shuffle out of the theatre.  Out of nowhere the curtain opens and there is another scene, in which it is explained that the entire story was just a child's bed time story. So now, on top of feeling very confused, the audience now feels patronized.

We have a saying in Theatre - you're only good as your LAST performance.  This includes the very last thing any patron will see, which is the ending.  It doesn't matter if you performed flawlessly in the first two acts.

So OP, no.  We have not ruined conventional storytelling.  Pretty sure that Bioware struck the nail in that coffin.

[Kanner]

I'm failing to see how such widespread emotional investment in a video-game is somehow a bad thing as far as games as an artistic/storytelling medium is concerned.

To me, the opposite would be true. If games weren't art, you could end a game like ME3 in the way they did, and no-one would really give a crap.

[Amschel]

Art gets changed all the time. Sometimes it is the artist who decides to change it on their own. Some times they are pressured into it. Considering Bioware/EA is a business it is in their interest to accept that "hey we screwed up here" and make the effort to give what they promised to their loyal fans. Art is never really finished until its creator sits down and decides he/she just doesn't want to screw with it anymore, whether they are finally satisfied with it, or just tired of adding/making changes. Considering Bioware had already planned on adding DLC than Mass Effect 3 is not complete yet and wide open for changes.

[kato42]

Thanks, we couldn't have done it without your help!

[Quietness]

So ill quickly go and say , hey look at my post on the first page, tons of classic examples of how the public perception of art changed it. But i have another good one done by bioware that someone reminded me of today.


Mass Effect: Deception

"Following fan concerns about Deception's numerous errors,[4] BioWare and Del Rey Books apologized and announced that changes would be made to future editions of the novel.[5] Information about the release of the updated editions of Deception is pending."
Source: http://masseffect.wi...fect:_Deception

Sooo Bioware is ok to change a book, but not a video game... im sorry but WTF? Artistic Integrity is apparently something they can pick and choose.

[Amschel]

Quietness wrote...

So ill quickly go and say , hey look at my post on the first page, tons of classic examples of how the public perception of art changed it. But i have another good one done by bioware that someone reminded me of today.


Mass Effect: Deception

"Following fan concerns about Deception's numerous errors,[4] BioWare and Del Rey Books apologized and announced that changes would be made to future editions of the novel.[5] Information about the release of the updated editions of Deception is pending."
Source: http://masseffect.wi...fect:_Deception

Sooo Bioware is ok to change a book, but not a video game... im sorry but WTF? Artistic Integrity is apparently something they can pick and choose.

Heh, I totally forgot about that book being a complete disaster. This is an extremely good point.

[Phategod1]

Devils-DIVISION wrote...

This has already been discussed. You simply cannot get away with plot holes, unanswered questions, lack of closure, illogical inconsistencies and broken promises, by calling it art.

Tell that to George Lucas.