807 réponses à ce sujet

[Dreogan]

DESTRAUDO wrote...

Because as i said, it would create a jarring change of tone at the end of the game.  You seem to think you should have the happy happy choice. 

Tell me.

Where was the happy happy choice in ME1 when you had to choose between kaiden and ashley? 

Where was the happy happy choice in Arrival DLC where you got to warn the batarian colony and allow them to escape?
Where was the happy happy choice in ME3 where you got to cure the genophage and keep mordin alive?
Where was the happy happy choice in ME3 where you got to resolve the geth war without losing legion and tali?

What you see in ME3 rather beginning in arrival dlc in earnest but grounded in the foundation of the choice in ME1 is that there is not always an optimal scenario. If anything players were spoiled with the ability to resolve disputes perfectly between squadmates in me2. You should have had to pick your sides in those fights and had to deal with it. 

So yeah, in a game full of situations where you are not given an optimal choice, you want an ending that gives a happy happy optimal choice. Why stop at the ending. They should rewrite ALL the priority missions to give you a rediculous happy scenario if you keep blindly hammering the paragon button.  And why stop there, they should also rewrite ME1 to remove the need to choose between kaiden or ashley.  Everyone is happy! 

Simply put. No. 
 

Aweus wrote...

DESTRAUDO wrote...

In polls half the people demanded a lalala happy ending. They will never get it. I hope they never get it.

People have given examples of times in the past when artists have had to cave. That does not make those examples a good thing.

Take a poll of how many people would want LEON in the movie LEON to live at the end. I guarantee you if it came to a majority vote they would have to ruin the ending of leon.

Take a poll of how many people think it would be better if simbas dad in lion king had not died. Bam. classic ruined forever.

Take a poll of how many people would have wanted arnie to live at the end of terminator 2. classic ruined forever.

Take a poll of how many people want Danny to die at the end of american history X. classic ruined forever.

Take a poll of how many people want maggie to die at the end of million dollar baby. classic ruined forever.

All the people who would demand changes to those endings could pull out the line that artists need to be humble and change according to feedback but the result would still ruin the tone of all of those movies.

Bioware have stated they will try and clarify the ending while keeping their artistic integrity. The tone at the end of mass effect ranges from bleak to optimism depending on your choice. They cannot throw in a happy happy lets party ending that 50 percent of people want without divorcing the tone of the end of the game from everything that happened in the previous 40 hours.

It would be like having the happy happy dance ending of fantastic mr fox at the end of saving private ryan. It would be like having a jovial bar scene at the end of empire strikes back.


They wont add that unicorn ending if they have an ounce of dignity and the fact they say they will be aiming to preserve artistic integrity shows they wont. They will add more clarity to the current ending. If people are very lucky they will add a prologue that shows an optimism for the future through a determination to rebuild.

Oh. My. God. Not. Again.
Seriously. Aside from the fact if happy ending is what you, me or anyone else wants. How is presence of OPTION of such ending in the INTERACTIVE VIDEO GAME ruins in any way experience of someone who finds such ending appaling? You may never ever see it by yourself if you wish so. Please, explain me. Pretty please, let me understand.

Or they could stick with their idea not to have a happy ending, then rewrite it so the damn thing makes sense. I don't care what they do, as long as they fix it.

And for the love of sweet baby starchild, don't even think about going down the path of "it's too profound." We've beaten, slaughtered, beaten it some more, ground it into burgers, and packaged it for easy consumption at any time of the year, that horse many times before.

Modifié par Dreogan, 22 mars 2012 - 09:41 .

[Zokopops]

To OP: NO. We have ruined a companys right to false marketing. You can not give so many people the impression that you are going to conclude a TRILOGY that people has spent many hours and money on and deliever this....you just can't. And for that I am proud and holding the line!

[snfonseka]

First of all, I am still playing ME3 so I don't know about the ending. But let us discuss what the OP is trying to say.

OP is trying to compare games with books, movies and art etc. By doing so OP is trying to show that if games cannot be compared to books, movies and art, then games cannot be considered as arts. What he (or she) is forgetting that games are an interactive medium not a passive medium as books, movies and art. So trying apply the rules that suits for a passive medium to a interactive medium is a failure. I believe a game is a two way communication between the developers and customers, where according to the output of the game the customer actively response to the game via actively playing the game.

People like this OP are one of the social barriers that prevent games from evolving. These people like to keep the games within the same dimensions of art, books and movies etc. They are afraid to think that there can be a medium that can evolve according to the user feedback that can change according to others suggestions. An art which is evolving/ changing, is not something these people can comprehend.

I don't know what is the BW plan for this "ending change". Some people may like it and some people may hate it. But what we have be positive about the approach BW is going to take. They are going to change/ modify their "Art" based on the feedback, which is a admirable step.

If we take a look at the history, there were people who afraid to change; luckily there were people who want to experiments with new things and discover something new. So according to what I have read BW is trying to change their "Art" base on the others opinion, which I see as the evolution of "Art"; the next step for truly interactive medium.

[Phategod1]

Sparse wrote...

Even if you accept the argument that art can be a commercial product - which is highly questionable - it is complete nonsense to suggest that an artist will - or should - act with a total disregard for their audience. No artist does that, particularly not when they are utilising a highly interactive medium.

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). 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. and I've said it a million times you did not pay for the ending you thought you deseerved or even a good ending you for A GAME nothing more, nothing less you paid $60+ for A GAME and you received a damn fine game at that. everyone is entitled to there opinion on the game or the ending, but to demand a change in my opnion is rediculous and counter productive in modern story telling. 

[Banelash]

elferin91 wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...


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. 

FINNALY SOMEBODY GETS IT........ actually i think you are right here but i don't think you get it.
While I do see games as "art" just for the sake of ME3 horrible ending I'm gonna say that it isn't.
How can you say something is an "art" if it has a deadline, it was rushed because it wasn't given enough time AND it's sole purpose was to sell to a larger crowd ignoring the established fanbase. What "artist" in his right mind would do that. Also everyone talks like Bioware is one person, but the truth is, you wouldn't believe it, it's a lot of people under one company, so how can that be an "artistic" vision if on the same product worked more then one writer?
Also not having any right? B**** Please

http://www.youtube.c...p-eggD1Q#t=649s

this should put you back into your seat

Ans:
A commercial artist! - aka graphic designers, digital media designer, animators that gets a salary from a company that is selling a product.


Even advertising is using visual art create by these artists. Are you saying these artists can go tell the customer that I won't betray my artistic integrity?

[Niemack Saarinen]

Phategod1 wrote...
If you never want to buy another Bioware/EA game thats your right but to demand them to change a finished a product and if they actually do it you have sucessfully destoryed the artistic integrity of the product. 

It's completely unfinished and rushed, thus the outrage. 

[Pepitobenito]

 Making a bad conclusion to a story is what destroys storytelling, not calling someone on it.

[Nefelius]

Think about tons of movie's scripts which were remade by directors, publichers? Did they violated author's artistic view too?
We see a lot of movies that are just screening of a certain book, and the plot the characters and more thingsthan we can count are changed by movie's directors. They too did violate original's author artistic view?
More importantly art - is someone's vision. It can not have a deadline, marketing strategy and business plan. Like in ME case.

[Mastermadskills]

Mastermadskills wrote...

WHY I DISLIKE THIS THREAD AND THE AUTHOR THEREOF


#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.

EDITED POST.  PLEASE READ NEW ONE.

Thanks.

Modifié par Mastermadskills, 22 mars 2012 - 09:44 .

[nitefyre410]

Luc0s wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

What this means is video games are not art, have no artistic value and are just a product. 

Bullcrap! Just because we demand change and BioWare is considering giving us that change does not mean video-games have lost their artistic value.

You say that because video-games get changed (updated, patched or enhanced), they are no longer art? Because art can't be changed you say? This really is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Do you even know anything about art?


Also, for the tenthousandth time: Video-games are not the same as books or movies! Video-games are an artform on their own and video-games should therefor be judged on their own merits. This flawed comparison between video-games and books/movies is getting old and tiresome... 

 

This man just said it all...  this needs not be put up on a bil board in big neon freaking lights.

[Ricvenart]

Even if this was remotely true, is it such a bad thing?
The interactive storytelling method becomes more influenced by the players, sounds more like growth and doing something that other stories can't do as well.

Although tbh, I can't tell is the title and post are serious. Do you truly deem that many plotholes okay? And if you do how come the change requested by fans for Deception didn't kill conventional story telling (Kind of interesting they not only acknowlegde but apologised for those errors as a side note).

Modifié par Ricvenart, 22 mars 2012 - 09:46 .

[Pee Jae]

Aliens. In this movie, Ripley develops an attachment for a little girl she's never met. At the time the film was released, most of the people who watched it were left kind of scratching their heads about that one. In the end, it was still a good film. Later, it was revealed in a deleted scene that Ripley had a daughter who had grown up and died of old age. Ripley never got to see her past a certain age because she (Ripley) was billions of miles away in cryosleep. The deleted scene made the film better.

Bioware can do this with Mass Effect 3 and still maintain their integrity as "artists".

[Dreogan]

Phategod1 wrote...

Sparse wrote...

Even if you accept the argument that art can be a commercial product - which is highly questionable - it is complete nonsense to suggest that an artist will - or should - act with a total disregard for their audience. No artist does that, particularly not when they are utilising a highly interactive medium.

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). 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. and I've said it a million times you did not pay for the ending you thought you deseerved or even a good ending you for A GAME nothing more, nothing less you paid $60+ for A GAME and you received a damn fine game at that. everyone is entitled to there opinion on the game or the ending, but to demand a change in my opnion is rediculous and counter productive in modern story telling. 

You seriously just quoted movies as an example of artists that don't care about their audiences? Where advanced screenings, alternative versions, and a producer's idea of what an audience "wants" funds, shapes, and develops a movie? 

[Quietness]

Mastermadskills wrote...

Mastermadskills wrote...

WHY I DISLIKE THIS THREAD AND THE AUTHOR THEREOF


#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.

EDITED POST.  PLEASE READ NEW ONE.

Thanks.

What no see me after class markings?

[Mad-Hamlet]

[quote]1st let me say that this following statement is for older individuals with common sense and the ability to form coherent sentences.[/quote]

That include I.

[quote]Your the ones I am disappointed in[/quote]

Sorry Dad. I'll do better text term. Can I borrow the car?

[quote]not the 16 year old children who should not even be playing the M rated ME1 from several years ago.[/quote]

I agree. They shouldn't be playing ME1 the poor dears, they should be doing something educational, like playing Grand Theft Auto.

[quote]What you dont understand is, if Bioware and Casey Hudson have agreed to actually change the ending based on the arguaments,[/quote]

They haven't. I wish differently but they haven't.

[quote]then what has been achieved is the fans have comepletely invalidated Casey Hudson's artistic vision[/quote]

You can find it any time you like both in ME3 or if you stare point blank at an old TV tube.

[quote]and video games artistic value as a whole.[/quote]

Here's a helmet, Chicken Little.

[quote]What this means is video games are not art, have no artistic value and are just a product. [/quote]

Mass Effect was mass produced and affected the masses effectively.

[quote]Movies, books, and other form set to entertain can be claimed as art[/quote]

The Meese Comission spent years trying to define Obcene on legal grounds and failed as all thing could be called Art by someone.

Can you define art then for us?

[quote]as such we all can base an opinion on it[/quote]

So Art allows the creation of opinion but we cannot use that opinion to alter the art?

[quote]but when you demand the artist change it, most times they'll laugh in your face and tell you to sod off[/quote]

Han Shot First!

[quote]because its there art they made it and its your choice to enjoy it or not or buy it or not. [/quote]

Cheeseburgers are now art I guess.

[quote]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. [/quote]

- Any alteration by any force compromises the original vision? Even the artist's own changes? What about his peers? Colleagues? Employers? His own creativity? Define compromise then.

-Brushing your general terminology aside (The sky is not falling) Mass Effect specifically and games from large publishers are products first.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Yes we do.
It says so Here and Here.

[quote]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[/quote]

This has nothing to do with anything else in your entire post. Why is it here?

[quote]thats a fact of life. For those who don't like the ending, you have a right to your opinin[/quote]

Yes, we do.

[quote]but when you demand a change, you have over stepped your bounds as a fan and a consumer[/quote]

How so?
Who defined those boundaries? When?
Who gave this person, or committee or conclave that power?
Was there an election?
Summary commands from on high?
Show me the Book of Laws for Fans.
Who is handing out the Pamphlet 'So You Want to Be a Consumer Too? Here's How!"?

[quote]and you may singlehandedly destroyed modern story telling in games. [/quote]

How so?


[quote]Thanks for any one who took the time to read all this and Apoligize[/quote]

Never apologize unless you did evil by design.

[quote]for length and any spelling or grammatical errors I missed.[/quote]

Spellcheck is your friend.

[No Liberty]

They modify books, paintings, movies, basically art all the time... sometimes because the artist thinks he can improve it, and sometimes because of feedback. This is no different.

[agathokakological]

Phategod1 wrote...

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.

When Leonardo da Vinci was paid to do a piece of art, he did what his patrons asked him to do. Many, many times he completely redid entire pieces of art to fit the paton's request. Are you saying that this corrupted the intrinsic artistic value of his work?

When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wanted to finish writing Sherlock Holmes stories, and his fans mutinied for him to write more, simply because they didn't want it to end, he wrote more stories. Are you saying that these stories, because he never intended to write them before his fans demanded it, are not canon to Sherlock Holmes, on artistic grounds?

Finally, when Bethesda launched the Broken Steel DLC pack, which included not just a new ending that revived the main character, but an additional 10-20 hours of content that they had not planned pre-launch, did this soil the artistic integrity of video games forever and set a bad precedent?

If you answered no to any of these questions, then the question becomes, how is this any different?

[Chk-2000]

Phategod1 wrote...

Sparse wrote...

Even if you accept the argument that art can be a commercial product - which is highly questionable - it is complete nonsense to suggest that an artist will - or should - act with a total disregard for their audience. No artist does that, particularly not when they are utilising a highly interactive medium.

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). 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. and I've said it a million times you did not pay for the ending you thought you deseerved or even a good ending you for A GAME nothing more, nothing less you paid $60+ for A GAME and you received a damn fine game at that. everyone is entitled to there opinion on the game or the ending, but to demand a change in my opnion is rediculous and counter productive in modern story telling. 

I think it's exactly the other way around. If we all thought Mass Effect was JUST a game, there would be no outcry. No one would mind the endings. It is BECAUSE we feel ME is "art", a masterpiece even that we are so upset about the meaningless ending that ruins the whole picture.

[Phategod1]

Wowlock wrote...

If you think this ending was ''conventional'' ... I hate to say, I feel sorry for you. If we won't call people on their mistakes ...they won't be able to improve themselves..... just look at the series like CoD.... you see any improvement ? It is basicly the same game with 1-2 new weapons and we do not hear any complaints....THAT is the sad thing...not us who voice our opinions to make this series MEMORIABLE. To give it an ending it DESERVES....

I'm not saying the ending was conventional what Im saying is buy making them change the end you will wind up with in the future is games that are heavily story based will not be the vision of the dev team, we'll have "games By committee" where angry fans force devs teams back in studio come out with DLC to "improve" an aspect of the they were not happy with. 

[Dreogan]

Phategod1 wrote...

Wowlock wrote...

If you think this ending was ''conventional'' ... I hate to say, I feel sorry for you. If we won't call people on their mistakes ...they won't be able to improve themselves..... just look at the series like CoD.... you see any improvement ? It is basicly the same game with 1-2 new weapons and we do not hear any complaints....THAT is the sad thing...not us who voice our opinions to make this series MEMORIABLE. To give it an ending it DESERVES....

I'm not saying the ending was conventional what Im saying is buy making them change the end you will wind up with in the future is games that are heavily story based will not be the vision of the dev team, we'll have "games By committee" where angry fans force devs teams back in studio come out with DLC to "improve" an aspect of the they were not happy with. 

That's a slippery slope argument. A fallacy. If you haven't noticed, this has been done before. So even if there is some magical slippery slope it existed prior to this game's change.

Modifié par Dreogan, 22 mars 2012 - 09:51 .

[elferin91]

Banelash wrote...




Ans:
A commercial artist! - aka graphic designers, digital media designer, animators that gets a salary from a company that is selling a product.


Even advertising is using visual art create by these artists. Are you saying these artists can go tell the customer that I won't betray my artistic integrity?

wait, what?
If that company doesn't like what that artist did, he has to do it again, am I right?

Modifié par elferin91, 22 mars 2012 - 09:55 .

[Aetius5]

Wow apparently the OP has been living under a rock since before he was born. Just reading the first page, there are several examples of fans demanding change of art.

[darkshadow136]

agathokakological wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

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.

When Leonardo da Vinci was paid to do a piece of art, he did what his patrons asked him to do. Many, many times he completely redid entire pieces of art to fit the paton's request. Are you saying that this corrupted the intrinsic artistic value of his work?

When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wanted to finish writing Sherlock Holmes stories, and his fans mutinied for him to write more, simply because they didn't want it to end, he wrote more stories. Are you saying that these stories, because he never intended to write them before his fans demanded it, are not canon to Sherlock Holmes, on artistic grounds?

Finally, when Bethesda launched the Broken Steel DLC pack, which included not just a new ending that revived the main character, but an additional 10-20 hours of content that they had not planned pre-launch, did this soil the artistic integrity of video games forever and set a bad precedent?

If you answered no to any of these questions, then the question becomes, how is this any different?

I love that we have people on here that have read their history, instead of trying to re-invent it. great statement. +100

[Mister Mida]

Phategod1 wrote...

I'm not saying the ending was conventional what Im saying is by making them change the end you will wind up with in the future is games that are heavily story based will not be the vision of the dev team, we'll have "games By committee" where angry fans force devs teams back in studio come out with DLC to "improve" an aspect of the they were not happy with. 

Who exactly is making them change the end?

[Gibb_Shepard]

But you don't understand, we're making it art. As it stands, it is incoherent dribble with factual errors in logic.