807 réponses à ce sujet

[Rothgar49]

Phategod1 wrote...

you have over stepped your bounds as a fan and a consumer, and you may singlehandedly destroyed modern story telling in games.

Hmm, and interesting concept there and I suppose it really does depend on how you look at this situation. I slightly agree in the sense that art can be comprimised, but I would answer... So what? Ultimately everything today is a business and any business that doesn't alter it's product to what it's customer wants is doomed to fail. There is always another competitor in the market who is willing to change a product to what the consumer wants. We can debate art vs business until forever however, but Bioware is a business.

Also like every has pointed out Bethesda did something similar (not so much changing, but altering) the end on Fallout 3 and it was well done and Fallout 3 continues to be one of the top games on my list . If Bioware has listened to it's fan and does make things clearer, or even allow for the option of an alternate ending, then they can only boost their own reputations and fan base.

[Foxtrotarmy]

I would say that like all new iterations of "art", we have to shift our paradigm on what we would consider videogame art, what with the new addition of interactivity. Every new medium challenges convention,any one argument for or against art is rendered obsolete with every new medium. Films weren't considered art when they first arrived, and TV has only just recently started getting serious literary and critical acclaim as a storytelling medium.

Videogames are interactive, that's what separates them from film and TV in that they're active mediums, not passive like the previous examples. So a videogame actively shifting its appearance or context with its audience wouldn't somehow disqualify it from some canon book of art rules. If anything I think it's a huge step in the right direction to the medium really beginning to define itself and come into its own, and getting much closer to what we would consider art.

[Phategod1]

Vaktathi wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

Vaktathi wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...


I agree games are not art they are a product sold to a consumer, and a customer is entitled to get what they paid for.

You did, you got a game. 

Nobody paid for just "a game". They paid for what was advertised a compelling wrap-up to a great trilogy, based on multiple and fairly specific promises from the developers. These promises in large part turned out to be false. Now, in many other circumstances, people may not care, but when there are specifics given on a project with this much time/emotional investment, and they turn out to be false, that's an issue. 

I.E. stuff like this.

http://i686.photobuc...iver1/xUq9t.png 

Two things I want to state: first, if you did or did not find the ending of ME3 "compelling" that is your opinion not a fact. and here's the second thing The entire game is the "Wrapping up" not that one scene the entire game and all the different things that happen based on what you did in ME1 & 2 resulting in things like Conrad Verner living or dying Wrex living or dying all those things are the "wrapping up" that Casey meant. 

You missed the big point of my post. We were sold something that was not as described. When given specifics as to the game, they quite often turned out to be false, in some cases excatly the opposite.  Yeah, "compelling" is subjective, but they managed to do it twice before quite successfully and not so much this time if the controversy is anything to go by. This didn't happen in ME1 or ME2, so we can say that, at least on some level, they failed to carry that through adequately. 

As to "wrapping up", no, claiming the entire game is supposed to do that doesn't work, because when all is said and done, much if not most of it simply is not wrapped up. We see the relays explode and the reapers leave/die, and the normandy crash. The fate of pretty much everything aside from a couple people on the normandy is left unknown. 

There was debates over the quality of ME2 not to the point of this, but there were poo poo storms after fighting the giant Terminator and, not having OG crew members like Wrex, and the Vermire survivor. I understand your post but I do not agree with it. The whole arguament about the level of closure is subjective, As for plotholes I can name serious plotholes in Both Star Wars Trilogies and The LOTR Trilogies does that, A. Invalidate the series or B. give justification to force Lucas, Tolkien, and Jackson to change there original visions?

No one here save for Mods are employees of Bioware you did not Commision Casey Hudson to make Mass Effect and Yes Movie studios will screen a movie and reshoot scenes if needed, and editors tell writers about changes that need to be made, but how many times when these mediums do the equivalent of "going gold" are the directors, writers or whomeever  "Encouraged" to change, or amend the finished product 30+ pages I've seen only two major citations. 

[KTheAlchemist]

I believe that ME3 is art.

However, I work as a freelance artist, and in that capacity I'd like to offer an analogy I find pertinent here.

There's a difference between making art for art's sake, and commissioned artwork. I make both. I don't change my personal "for art's sake" artwork unless I feel like it. But I change art that I'm doing for a customer all the time.

If you make art for art's sake, you simply make your art and present it to the world. People can approve of or disapprove of it. If a lot of people approve of it, it will become famous, it will be be in showings, galleries, et cetera. If they do not approve of it, it will simply fade away into obscurity. But no one will, or at least no one should, ask you to change the painting because you did not paint it for them. The paintings that I make on my own time are mine to make, alter, and display as I please. I may ask for critiques, and I should never consider myself above constructive criticism. I am however under no obligation to change it.

Commissioned or commercial artwork is an entirely different matter however, and the moment you accept pay for your work, it becomes an entirely different beast.

Let's say that I advertise that I will paint whatever you want for $60. You hire me then to paint a picture of a panda. I don't know, maybe you just like pandas. You love pandas, let's say, and you're always on the lookout for new, well done artwork of pandas. I promise you that for your money I will deliver the best painting of a panda that I can produce. You give me the money and I set to work. A few months later, I deliver a painting. It is very skillfully done, and a fine example of my craft. Few people would argue that this is not a very fine painting. However, it is a painting of a horse.

"This is a horse!" you say. "This isn't what I asked for! This isn't what you promised me!"

"Yes," I say, "but it is the painting I wanted to paint. You need to respect my vision as an artist."

This is really where the rubber meets road on Artistic Vision vs. Promises to the Consumer.

It isn't the exact content of the ending that really creates a problem here, but rather the structure. We weren't promised exactly what the ending would contain, but rather that it would follow a certain structure. That it would have 16 "wildly divergent" endings. That it would not be an "A, B, or C" ending. That it would not pull a "Lost" and leave us with more questions than answers. Many people feel that Bioware didn't deliver on these promises with the Mass Effect 3 title as launched, and I don't think that is an unfair assertion.

As far as doom and gloom predictions, and I mean this truly and honestly: try to rest easy. Creativity and artistic endeavor in games didn't end with Fallout 3 doing a retcon to the entire ending in a DLC. DLC that expands and adds to possible endings without removing the original, which is I suspect what Bioware is going to do, won't destroy games forever either.

Modifié par KTheAlchemist, 23 mars 2012 - 10:19 .

[Beta-Breech]

KTheAlchemist wrote...

I believe that ME3 is art.

However, I work as a freelance artist, and in that capacity I'd like to offer an analogy I find pertinent here.

There's a difference between making art for art's sake, and commissioned artwork. I make both. I don't change my personal "for art's sake" artwork unless I feel like it. But I change art that I'm doing for a customer all the time.

If you make art for art's sake, you simply make your art and present it to the world. People can approve of or disapprove of it. If a lot of people approve of it, it will become famous, it will be be in showings, galleries, et cetera. If they do not approve of it, it will simply fade away into obscurity. But no one will, or at least no one should, ask you to change the painting because you did not paint it for them. The paintings that I make on my own time are mine to make, alter, and display as I please. I may ask for critiques, and I should never consider myself above constructive criticism. I am however under no obligation to change it.

Commissioned or commercial artwork is an entirely different matter however, and the moment you accept pay for your work, it becomes an entirely different beast.

Let's say that I advertise that I will paint whatever you want for $60. You hire me then to paint a picture of a panda. I don't know, maybe you just like pandas. You love pandas, let's say, and you're always on the lookout for new, well done artwork of pandas. I promise you that for your money I will deliver the best painting of a panda that I can produce. You give me the money and I set to work. A few months later, I deliver a painting. It is very skillfully done, and a fine example of my craft. Few people would argue that this is not a very fine painting. However, it is a painting of a horse.

"This is a horse!" they say. "This isn't what I asked for! This isn't what you promised me!"

"Yes," I say, "but it is the painting I wanted to paint. You need to respect my vision as an artist."

This is really where the rubber meets road on Artistic Vision vs. Promises to the Consumer.

It isn't the exact content of the ending that really creates a problem here, but rather the structure. We weren't promised exactly what the ending would contain, but rather that it would follow a certain structure. That it would have 16 "wildly divergent" endings. That it would not be an "A, B, or C" ending. That it would not pull a "Lost" and leave us with more questions than answers. Many people feel that Bioware didn't deliver on these promises with the Mass Effect 3 title as launched, and I don't think that is an unfair assertion.

As far as doom and gloom predictions, and I mean this truly and honestly: try to rest easy. Creativity and artistic endeavor in games didn't end with Fallout 3 doing a retcon to the entire ending in a DLC. DLC that expands and adds to possible endings without removing the original, which is I suspect what Bioware is going to do, won't destroy games forever either.

It's great to have input from other artists on this subject.  I myself am a musician, and while I record things for myself for fun or just for the creative process, when I'm paid to do a job and asked for a certain style to be delivered I do what is requested because it's paid work where the buyer is getting a service.  

 I really love the fact that Bioware has us all talking, in depth about these things, it's facinating to get peoples opinions and perceptions on the subject of art.   

[The Lightspeaker]

OP is wrong.

http://gotgame.com/2...fect-3s-ending/

[nikola8]

Based on Dr. Ray's announcement, I would be very surprised if they changed the ending. Continually, he said that they were going to add more "clarity" and "closure", but that he stuck by the "artistic choices made by the development team." Based on his announcement, he's not going to change the ending, but rather simply augment it to answer the questions people have. Sure, this approach will still anger those that favor a complete ending rewrite, but it seems to be the direction Bioware is going based on Dr. Ray's announcement.

EDIT: (add blog URL): 
http://blog.bioware....012/03/21/4108/ 

Modifié par nikola8, 23 mars 2012 - 10:37 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Vaktathi wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...


I agree games are not art they are a product sold to a consumer, and a customer is entitled to get what they paid for.

You did, you got a game. 

Nobody paid for just "a game". They paid for what was advertised a compelling wrap-up to a great trilogy, based on multiple and fairly specific promises from the developers. These promises in large part turned out to be false. Now, in many other circumstances, people may not care, but when there are specifics given on a project with this much time/emotional investment, and they turn out to be false, that's an issue. 

I.E. stuff like this.

http://i686.photobuc...iver1/xUq9t.png 

Yeah, like SOME people's dissatisfaction is projected to everyone and true as gospel. GMAB.

Just because the ending wasn't compelling to YOU, doesn't mean others don't enjoy it, or that the devs themselves didn't feel it was compelling.