618 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockpopple]

Balmung31 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...


How many times, from how many different users, in how many different ways, do you have to figure out you're just plain wrong on this before it finally settles in?

Yes, Rockpopple, how long will it take for you to realize that?  Got any estimates?

What the--

Oh, I see what you did there!

[RedNanaki]

The Angry One wrote...

"That was a joke".
He evidentally took it seriously, what can you do..

Some people lack the internet sarcasm radar. Zealots in particular.

Anyhows, let's rip on Moriarty instead of eachocher!

[The Angry One]

Rockpopple wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

How many times, from how many different users, in how many different ways, do you have to figure out you're just plain wrong on this before it finally settles in?

Are we allowed to take bets? Because I'm gonna bet $100 on the short-side of thousand times. But we're probably not gonna reach that point, so you're likely to just remain ignorant on this issue forever.

Which is kind of terrifying, when you really think about it.

All I read was "YOU'RE WRONG!". In fact, that's all you've ever said.
Why are we wrong?

If that's all you've read from everything I've written, then - ironically enough - you're doing it wrong.

No you're right, there's also the insults. Sorry for forgetting that.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Rockpopple wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

SandSkorpion wrote...

It is readily apparent that Kain's article was meant to point out the hypocrisy of Moriarty's view on changing the endings/content by citing Infamous 2 and relating it to ME3. The circumstances surrounding Infamous 2 are completely different and it is apparent that Kain did not research the event since he claims the changes were made AFTER the game's release. The two instances cannot be equally compared.

I am not arguing whether claims of artistic integrity is valid or not. I personally feel that a developer with an established fan base *should* appease their fans to a point. But that is not what this thread is about.

I am arguing that the mob mentality latching on to any article that appears to be in their favor even though the facts are misrepresented, is quite ridiculous.

Sigh. Once again. The circumstances DO NOT CHANGE THE PRINCIPLE, and the principle is Moriarty believes fan input should not change a developer's "vision". Except when it's convenient for him.

How many times, from how many different users, in how many different ways, do you have to figure out you're just plain wrong on this before it finally settles in?

Are we allowed to take bets? Because I'm gonna bet $100 on the short-side of thousand times. But we're probably not gonna reach that point, so you're likely to just remain ignorant on this issue forever.

Which is kind of terrifying, when you really think about it.

Oh god, that was funny. You didn't actually try to rebut her statement, you just said "you're wrong". 

The principle is exactly the same. I'm going to wait and see whether or not you can argue against that, or just yell "YOU'RE WRONG!".

[Zyrious]

Rockpopple wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

The Infamous 2 controversy and this controversy are two different things.

Infamous 2 was still in development when fans learned of Cole's new looks and wanted a change.

Comparing that to what happened in ME3 would be as if Infamous 2 shipped with the new-look Cole and then was changed with a patch a month afterwards due to fan outcry. Obviously that wasn't the case.

This should be something "Kain" and this community should realize, but I'm not surprised they don't. Kain is probably lurking around these forums trying to figure out what he can write next to get more hits, and the community that loves Kain for doing it are simply not thinking things through, but are just reacting out of gut instinct.

It's sad and pathetic all around.

The developers had a vision in mind for their character, they changed that vision when they realized that fans *hated* the new look.  What arbitrary rule says that once it's released it's unacceptable to listen and incorporate criticism into your work anymore.  Bioware and EA already consider this game to still be a WIP thanks to the wonderful world of DLC.

There's no "abitrary rule". I'm saying the two instances AREN'T comparable! It's a lot easier to make changes before a game is released, early in the development cycle, then after the game is completed and shipped out. People comparing Colin's stance on Infamous 2 and his stance on Mass Effect 3 are ignorant. They're comparing apples and oranges, and I suspect they know it, but they don't care - because it furthers their agenda.

And that's sad.

First off, we live in an age of DLC so that argument is no longer valid. Infact, changing the ending could end up adding revenue they otherwise wouldn't have gotten so it's a non-issue. The whole point though isnt the mechanics of it, but the whole "art" issue. Is it not "art" until it's finished? Colin Morariarty praised a company for changing their "vision" based on fan feedback. Bioware is (hopefully) doing no differenty, Fallout 3 did no differently.

Modifié par Zyrious, 22 mars 2012 - 04:59 .

[FlyingCow371]

This thread moves way too fast. Possibly just these forums in general.

SandSkorpion wrote...

It is readily apparent that Kain's article was meant to point out the hypocrisy of Moriarty's view on changing the endings/content by citing Infamous 2 and relating it to ME3. The circumstances surrounding Infamous 2 are completely different and it is apparent that Kain did not research the event since he claims the changes were made AFTER the game's release. The two instances cannot be equally compared.

I am not arguing whether claims of artistic integrity is valid or not. I personally feel that a developer with an established fan base *should* appease their fans to a point. But that is not what this thread is about.

I am arguing that the mob mentality latching on to any article that appears to be in their favor even though the facts are misrepresented, is quite ridiculous.

Circumstances are different, yes. Completely? No. What's different? The timing, right? The change with Infamous was made before the disc was shipped, the (potential) ME3 change will be after the disc shipped. However, an important question should be - does that timing matter? A while ago, sure, once a game is out it's done forever; baring minor patches and such. But now, with the prevalance of DLC, just because a game has shipped doesn't mean development is complete.

Many games now come out with a game of the year, or "complete", or "extended" edition after release which includes all DLC. Especially in the case of mass effect, where they were planning from the beginning to offer post-release DLC for probably a year or so. So, clearly development is not complete. And if the only issue is that something shouldn't be changed once it's complete...that's okay since Mass Effect 3 is not complete yet. They are still in development, which by your points suggests we are allowed to make requests and give input to the developers so they can make the best, most successful game they can make for their fans. Just as valid in this situation as it was with Infamous.

[Kurokenshi]

Anybody else having issues opening the page?

[Rockpopple]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

There is a hypocritical element to many of your stances in that many of those same people who pushed for changes in this case have severe and I do mean severe issues with meta-gaming and there has been truly large disdain when such topics as adding multiplayer to single player RPG's, anime series and influenced figurines or allowing the fans to choose the appearance of FemShep they hissed and they moaned how just because it's popular to other potential customers en masse (more so than current fanbase in number) like such features or did not match their own preferences... The moment it is something they want they praise and use the same thing they hated in order to get what they want. In fact many of them kept saying how during the FemShep aspect that it should be left to Bioware and not the fans and now they changed their tune because their feelings were hurt. 

Dragoonlordz and I are on practically the same side of an issue.

...

...

The Mayans were right...

Modifié par Rockpopple, 22 mars 2012 - 04:58 .

[Leem_0001]

Rockpopple wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

SandSkorpion wrote...

It is readily apparent that Kain's article was meant to point out the hypocrisy of Moriarty's view on changing the endings/content by citing Infamous 2 and relating it to ME3. The circumstances surrounding Infamous 2 are completely different and it is apparent that Kain did not research the event since he claims the changes were made AFTER the game's release. The two instances cannot be equally compared.

I am not arguing whether claims of artistic integrity is valid or not. I personally feel that a developer with an established fan base *should* appease their fans to a point. But that is not what this thread is about.

I am arguing that the mob mentality latching on to any article that appears to be in their favor even though the facts are misrepresented, is quite ridiculous.

Sigh. Once again. The circumstances DO NOT CHANGE THE PRINCIPLE, and the principle is Moriarty believes fan input should not change a developer's "vision". Except when it's convenient for him.

How many times, from how many different users, in how many different ways, do you have to figure out you're just plain wrong on this before it finally settles in?

Are we allowed to take bets? Because I'm gonna bet $100 on the short-side of thousand times. But we're probably not gonna reach that point, so you're likely to just remain ignorant on this issue forever.

Which is kind of terrifying, when you really think about it.

The thing is here though - YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE. What makes you so right about this? All you talk about is the difference in time when the changes happened. The first during development, ME3 after release. What we are patiently putting to you is that when the point is about artistic integrity - this does not matter. Timing does not matter if the reason - fan 'outrage' - is the reason for the change. Technical issues are not what the argument is about. Artistic integrity, or the supposed artisitc integrity, is.

And you have not covered that in any way that makes sense.

I have tried stating this to you with reasons why - but all we get back is that 'you are WRONG'.

Again, what makes you an authority on this? Nothing. I am not stating flat out that you are wrong, I am asking you to make your arguments relevant to the discussion. So please, for the sake of respectful dicussion - highlight what you percieve as the difference when considering Artsitic Integrity in these two instances (bearing in mind fans of ME3 were not privvy to the ending prior to its release).

[Machazareel]

Rockpopple wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

marshkoala wrote...


@Rockpopple 
I don't know I a thing about Infamous 2 and so I can't comment.


What I can say is that I watched the IGN video and it was a raving rant against fans requesting change. It was really offensive to me, being 51 and playing the game, if you're going to disagree you can do so in a civil manner.


That said the Forbes article points out the inconsistencies with Colin's past comments.

Forbes' article doesn't go deep enough. All it does is show a surface so-called contradiction in Colin's past statement without going into how the two circumstances are COMPLETELY different.


But I bolded the real reason behind the love for Forbes and the hate for Moriarty. This is undeniable. It's not about trying to point out "inconsistencies" and "hypocrisy". It's about revenge. Pure and simple.

You have yet to establish that they are completely different.  The distinction you are making is irellevant because we are not arguing from a financial or economical standpoint about their ability to produce more content, nor was IGN.  It's moot.
We are arguing from a moral and philosophical standpoint about "artistic integrity" and "creators rights" and what say if any the fans have in the artist's creation.  You can't say its a dangerous precenent for fans to get a creator to change his work when you were championing another developer for listening to what their fans wanted and letting go of their own vision just a few months back.  You can change your mind but you can't have it both ways.

If I really have to explain to you how changing something during the development something and going back to change something after the development process is over and done with are two different things, then that's really the least of what I'd have to explain to you, isn't it?

If Colin Moriarty didn't make that clear in his little rant, that's fine, maybe he should have, but the difference is still there. The change in circumstance does colour people's perceptions, because that's what people do.

I wonder: to Kain and you and everyone else that wants BioWare to change the ending... what would you be thinking if a lot of people wanted a change an ending YOU actually LIKED?

Would you STILL be claiming that artistic integrity DOESN'T matter, and that fans should have a say in what the ending of a narrative is AFTER the narrative is completed? Or would you change your stance, and suddenly DEFEND artistic integrity, saying that the narrative should remain as shipped?

I'd really, really like to know that. Honestly, I probably only have to wait a few more months to get my answer.

I would want the same thing I want right now. That it be optional content so that those who are indeed happy with the current ending can keep their games the way they want them.

[quiksilver723]

Moriarty should probably stop talking about it, he's killing any cred he once had.

[Vhalkyrie]

Rockpopple wrote...

I'm saying anyone saying Colin contradicted himself are mistaken. He didn't. I never said I AGREE with Colin's position, and if you can prove I did I'd love for you to do so. I'm saying, his position hasn't changed. The situation with Infamous 2 and Mass Effect 3 are two different things.

I'm not surprised that this gets by people, with the speed these forums look at, but if people actually read what others wrote, it'd clear up a lot of confusion.

Strawman arguments.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Colin said user input was good in Infamous 2, but bad in Mass Effect 3.    Saying the difference is before or after development does not address the position itself.  Game developers can change aspects of the game due to user input.  Saying the difference is time reference is a false dichotomy.

[RedNanaki]

Guys, come on. Let's be civil and stay on topic.

"Effective immediately there is a zero tolerance policy on any form of abuse towards staff, moderators or other Community members.

Anyone posting a personal attack on staff, moderators or other Community members will, at the sole discretion of staff or moderators, be banned from the BioWare Social Network without notice and is no longer welcomed."

[The Angry One]

How long before Rockpopple makes a reply that isn't "You're wrong!"?
Takin' all bets!

Edit: Well I don't mind sarcastic ribbing but really some people here are over the top, yes.

Modifié par The Angry One, 22 mars 2012 - 05:00 .

[blah64]

God bless you Forbes. I'll be subscribin to you guys asa thank you, win or loose.

[1490]

Man, these guys really love us! I never expected to Forbes magazine as a spearhead in this movement.

[Kosiji]

Nephilym83 wrote...

Kosiji wrote...

This thread has been overrun by the staff at Forbes or by people who are just along for the ride. Either way...... :-/

Sucks to be the minority, doesn't it?

Nope. I've actually been reading Forbes for sometime now (through their good articles & through some of their articles targeted at minorites). However, people are jumping on the hype train rather than thinking with some form of rationality (not all). Still...it was a good article & I hope Bioware clears up this chaos before it rages out of control.

[Grasich]

Do people at IGN think, even a little bit, before they speak?

Props to Forbes for finding this.

[Exeider]

SandSkorpion wrote...

It is readily apparent that Kain's article was meant to point out the hypocrisy of Moriarty's view on changing the endings/content by citing Infamous 2 and relating it to ME3. The circumstances surrounding Infamous 2 are completely different and it is apparent that Kain did not research the event since he claims the changes were made AFTER the game's release. The two instances cannot be equally compared.

I am not arguing whether claims of artistic integrity is valid or not. I personally feel that a developer with an established fan base *should* appease their fans to a point. But that is not what this thread is about.

I am arguing that the mob mentality latching on to any article that appears to be in their favor even though the facts are misrepresented, is quite ridiculous.

Moriarty's ENTIRE arguement hinges on game developers not "betraying their artistic integrity" by changing their game because the fans ask for it. What kain ia merely pointing out, is that while Moriarty praises one developer that they changed BECAUSE of their fan's request, doesnt matter what the stage of development that the game was in, while at now stating that bioware shouldn't do it to maintain integrity, shows that moriary is a hypocrite, and is disingenuous of his stance, by the fact that he flip floped on the stance.

It doesnt matter that Infamous 2 was still in development when they made those changes, its the fact that the change was made because of fan request, If moriarty believed in the "artistic integrity" of game developers, he should of admonished Sucker Punch because they listened to their fans and made changes to their "Artistic Vision".

as I said in a previous post, Mr Moriarty is a jackass, and this forbes article actually proves it even worse, that he is a Hypocritical Jackass.

-AE

[xxskyshadowxx]

SandSkorpion wrote...

It is readily apparent that Kain's article was meant to point out the hypocrisy of Moriarty's view on changing the endings/content by citing Infamous 2 and relating it to ME3. The circumstances surrounding Infamous 2 are completely different and it is apparent that Kain did not research the event since he claims the changes were made AFTER the game's release. The two instances cannot be equally compared.

I am not arguing whether claims of artistic integrity is valid or not. I personally feel that a developer with an established fan base *should* appease their fans to a point. But that is not what this thread is about.

I am arguing that the mob mentality latching on to any article that appears to be in their favor even though the facts are misrepresented, is quite ridiculous.

Actually the article fits. He initially praised the developer for listening to it's fan base and making changes based on fan feedback prior to it's release. The ME3 ending was leaked prior to it's release according to the Final Hours info, the fans almost unilaterally hated it and the developer not only ignored that, they finalized the same ending and lied about it. Moriarty is now praising them for that and saying they shouldn't change it. That's hypocritical.

[Balmung31]

The Angry One wrote...

How long before Rockpopple makes a reply that isn't "You're wrong!"?
Takin' all bets!

Edit: Well I don't mind sarcastic ribbing but really some people here are over the top, yes.

See, now I need clarification on this.  Is it when he uses those EXACT words, or generally implies it? 

[Streambeck]

Rockpopple wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

How many times, from how many different users, in how many different ways, do you have to figure out you're just plain wrong on this before it finally settles in?

Are we allowed to take bets? Because I'm gonna bet $100 on the short-side of thousand times. But we're probably not gonna reach that point, so you're likely to just remain ignorant on this issue forever.

Which is kind of terrifying, when you really think about it.

All I read was "YOU'RE WRONG!". In fact, that's all you've ever said.
Why are we wrong?

If that's all you've read from everything I've written, then - ironically enough - you're doing it wrong.

You've yet to form any kind of coherent argument. I'll say it again, since you're either not seeing or ignoring my posts.

If the issue is purely artistic integrity, then Colin is being hypocritical. The new Cole was done. Artists had drawn him, designers had rendered him, programmers had implemented him. This required a great deal of work, and likely a great deal of artstic passion.

If the issue is how difficult it is to change a design decision while a game is in development, or after a game has shipped, then I can't imagine that anyone would argue that it's easier to implement a change within the confines of time and budget before a game is shipped.

Your "arguments" vear dramatically in whichever of these two directions serves whatever you're trying to say. How difficult a change is to implement is irrelevent to the artistic integrity debate, because Sucker Punch had to alter their artistic vission in response to fans. The fact that the game wasn't out yet doesn't change that fact.

[Kosiji]

How about those Yankees?

[Rockpopple]

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

I'm saying anyone saying Colin contradicted himself are mistaken. He didn't. I never said I AGREE with Colin's position, and if you can prove I did I'd love for you to do so. I'm saying, his position hasn't changed. The situation with Infamous 2 and Mass Effect 3 are two different things.

I'm not surprised that this gets by people, with the speed these forums look at, but if people actually read what others wrote, it'd clear up a lot of confusion.

Strawman arguments.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Colin said user input was good in Infamous 2, but bad in Mass Effect 3.    Saying the difference is before or after development does not address the position itself.  Game developers can change aspects of the game due to user input.  Saying the difference is time reference is a false dichotomy.

Yeah... I know what a Straw Man is... that was weird how you brought that up, because I never brought up a straw man, I responded directly to someone's question or demand of me.

Ah... yeah... that was odd. 

And I never said the difference is due to development. What the.... where are people getting this? I'm saying demanding a change during development and demanding a change after development are two different things.

Here's a simple analogy that even people in this thread should understand: do you really think Colin would be defending Sucker Punch if Infamous 2 was released with the new stupid-looking Cole McGrath? 

Here's another one. Would Colin be defending BioWare if these endings were released during development? Do we know how he reacted to the previous leaked endings?

Modifié par Rockpopple, 22 mars 2012 - 05:06 .

[Rockpopple]

The Angry One wrote...

How long before Rockpopple makes a reply that isn't "You're wrong!"?
Takin' all bets!

Edit: Well I don't mind sarcastic ribbing but really some people here are over the top, yes.

Appealing to the audience? Not a good sign, Angry One.