618 réponses à ce sujet

[Jackal7713]

Exeider 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.

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

Agreed.

Pre or post. The change happened because of fans. Fallout 3 and now Infamous 2, shows that the argument is invalid.  You can't say its wrong anymore. 

Moriarty never gave a vaild reason for his argument. EVER!  And now, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Now you can argue that he's right all you want. Anyone, looking at this from the outside is going to be, "dudes a hypocrite."

Modifié par Jackal7713, 22 mars 2012 - 05:24 .

[Count Viceroy]

Rickin10 wrote...

his jobs depends on defending EA. He's not even trying to hide it anymore.

This, he might as well be wearing an EA badge on his shirt.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 22 mars 2012 - 05:17 .

[Talogrungi]

I approve of this article; highlighting hypocrisy of this sort is always amusing.

[Rockpopple]

Raanz wrote...

I wanted to chime in because I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  Changing something during development because of fan pressure is absolutely no different.  If you have a design and an "artistic" vision, you stick with it.  If you change it either before or after release because of fan pressure, it's all the same.
I think you know that, but you probably enjoy playing the devil's advocate...I know I do.  :happy:

The game industry is tough as an artistic medium.  On one hand a lot of art is involved, not only the look and style of a project, but the writing.  On the other hand, as a developer, you want to make money, bottom line.  If you do not make any cash, you don't get the opportunity to start another project.  So it's a delicate balancing act, one I think you are witnessing from Bioware right now.  I honestly think, and I do mean this, that they are genuinely concerned that their fan base seems to be extremely unhappy with something they poured their hearts into..as an artist, I know it would affect me, but let's not kid ourselves...some of it has to do with dollar signs.

I do like playing devil's advocate. 

But I disagree. I think the development process is one that is made for taking in all manner of opinions. I think it's during the dev process that devs have an option to change if they think it's right for the narrative. Sucker Punch, for example, I don't think would have changed Cole's look, no matter what the fans thought, if they didn'tt hink Cole's old classic look still didn't fit in their narrative. They took a risk and made a change, and I admire them for it, but they decided to go classic and personally I think it was a good move.

But imagine going back and changing Cole's look AFTER development was finished, and the narrative was done? I couldn't. But that's what people expect BioWare to do. Again, I disagree.

But at this point, it's just a matter of differing opinions, which is cool. 

I agree entirely with your final paragraph. Nothing more I can add to that.

[Nette]

Mister Mida wrote...

I'm starting to like this Forbes a bit.

Yeah, me to! Go Forbes!

[marshkoala]

@Rockpopple Did you read my reply to you revenge comment? Just checking this thread is flying!

HanabPacal Wanted me to post for him/her.

" I believe that Kain was referencing the fact that the fan backlash happened after the release of the new character model for Cole to the public, and not after release of the actual game."

[SandSkorpion]

FlyingCow371 wrote...

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.

Great post FlyingCow. All valid points that I agree with. I am not stating that BioWare should not develop DLC to appease thier fans. Whether I feel they should or not is irrelevant to this thread. I am taking an objective stance with this thread alone and it's reaction to a flawed article. (I am taking it at face value, not making inferences about artistic integrity)

About the Timing:

But I would imagine that the time BioWare spends creating new material for the ending is less time they will have to spend creating new material outside of the ending they have planned for. As it applies to other developers...it is much easier to make a change mid-stride then it is to recall assets to create new material if it wasn't budgeted for. In the end...it all comes down to money.

Who knows how much (if any) of ME3 could have been outsourced..what if the Voice Actors hold out and demand an unreasonable amount of money because they know BioWare is under the gun. Yes, those assets are probably contracted out for new DLC but that scope of work is spelled out in fine print. This is a new expense the developers now have to absorb. As far as BioWare/EA goes..they have deep pockets so they can take this hit...not all developers have this luxury. And that is where a dangerous precedent could be established.

Modifié par SandSkorpion, 22 mars 2012 - 05:24 .

[pomrink]

One thing I'm finding odd is people are saying the endings were changed in response to the leak. They weren't. Have any of you seen the leak? It's the ending we have, with some cosmetic differences.

[NomadDC]

IGN pwned, nice. Liked that article. It's full of win.

[Leem_0001]

pomrink wrote...

One thing I'm finding odd is people are saying the endings were changed in response to the leak. They weren't. Have any of you seen the leak? It's the ending we have, with some cosmetic differences.

I haven't seen the leak and don't know what that ending was. Out of interest, could you let me know what the changes were?

[Rockpopple]

marshkoala wrote...

@Rockpopple Did you read my reply to you revenge comment? Just checking this thread is flying!

HanabPacal Wanted me to post for him/her.

" I believe that Kain was referencing the fact that the fan backlash happened after the release of the new character model for Cole to the public, and not after release of the actual game."

This thread and forum are moving at FTL, so I probably missed it. 

Kain could have been referencing that. If that's the case, then I retract any statement I made saying Kain had the facts wrong when he wrote that line. I still think Kain was wrong in his argument and missed a grand opportunity for discourse and further discussion on the issue, but on that particular issue, I was mistaken.

[Jackal7713]

Rickin10 wrote...

Come on, guys be fair to Moriarty, his jobs depends on defending EA. He's not even trying to hide it anymore.

Nope. When he called  retake, my friends, and I "childish, entitled, whiners, etc." and  then proven to be a hypocrite. He should get a pass?

BS!  I don't think so!

Modifié par Jackal7713, 22 mars 2012 - 05:28 .

[GB-Kakuzu]

Get bodied, son.

[GreyLord]

Ravennus wrote...

Well done!

I've actually lost all respect for IGN and Gamespot over this situation.

Can anyone recommend any other really good comprehensive game article/review websites?
I've been going to those to since they started, but it's finally dawning on me that their time is over.

I actually LOVE gamespot...but NOT for their professional reviews.  Those are mostly junk.  The fan reviews are what I typically read.  I read the top rated ones, the bottom rated ones, and the middle. Combined they usually paint a good picture of what the game is like.  I go to Gamespot for the user reviews when I want a review...

[johhnytrash]

What this has done for me is to completely disregard gaming "news" sites. I'll read player reviews after the game is out from now on. I was fooled once.

[xAGATHONx]

Epic WIN!!!

[pomrink]

Leem_0001 wrote...

pomrink wrote...

One thing I'm finding odd is people are saying the endings were changed in response to the leak. They weren't. Have any of you seen the leak? It's the ending we have, with some cosmetic differences.

I haven't seen the leak and don't know what that ending was. Out of interest, could you let me know what the changes were?

It didn't have music

[Catroi]

Phattee Buttz wrote...

Aside from Starchild, Moriarty may be the most disliked villain to come out of this whole fiasco.

[iiTzCyAniiDe]

morrie23 wrote...

Woop! Go Forbes!

[FlyingCow371]

Rockpopple wrote...

FlyingCow371 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

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 released?

Demanding a change during development vs after development are different, I'll give you that. However, I'd suggest that Mass Effect 3's development is not yet over. As with many current titles, Mass Effect 3 was planned to have several DLC releases after the disc shipped. This DLC content isn't complete yet. Since they're trying to make DLC stuff that doesn't yet exist, I'd say that they're in development right now. Therefore, mass effect 3 is still in development. Thus it's the same situation as with infamous - the developers have a chance to listen to feedback from their fans and use it to shape the content they are currently working on.

Here's another well-reasoned, intelligent counter to my argument.

Now I think whether or not Mass Effect 3's development cycle is over or not due to the presence of DLC is a longer, more difficult question to answer. I don't know the answer to that, and I doubt anyone does. But I think until we do, I still hold on to the belief that Mass Effect 3 is done, and everything we get after the fact is just gravy. The narrative is over, baked in, as it were. So should developers be expected to change a narrative that's baked in, rather than a narrative that's still baking, as it were?

I don't know the answer to that, to be honest. But you bring up a very good point. Not being sarcastic or condescending when I say that. Kudos.

I think some of the disagreements among people in favor of..."enhanced" endings vs. keeping them the same is the lack of clarity on what will be or can be changed. I'd most likely agree that the narrative that's..baked in (if I'm understanding your point right)...includes the original 3 colored choices; and I wouldn't want to take those away. Something like implementing the indocrination theory as true would be a very major overhaul, and if it were included on disc would've been a cool/surprising twist. But now, doing something like that feels like it'd be too late and would screw over people who liked the original choices.

For me, I'd just want them to add another option or two up there, in addition to the destroy/synthesize/control paths. I don't believe that sort of change would impact the experience of people who liked the original endings in a negative way. I'd also like to have some slightly interactive dialogue with the kid, but I'm not sure if that sort of addition would upset people who liked the endings as they stand.

And then I'd like some sort of epilogue/explanation for what happened to some things - the races/planets that Shepard made peace/war with, crew, ship, and the army around earth. 'cause with the relay exploding in colored light, which made the normandy crash... it probably would make the galaxy's fleet of ships crash tooo which is depressing. But there may be people who liked having an ending with some confusion/questions raised. Will be tough for bioware to figure this stuff out. It would be a lot easier/simpler for them to say "No, screw you, this is our game. If you don't like it get out.", so we definitely appreciate the effort that they seem to be making (or are talking about considering having a meeting to have a discussion about making an effort? PR stuff is confusing).

[Streambeck]

For the record, and completely off topic, but for anyone that hasn't played Infamous 2:

It has two endings, - which doesn't seem like much compared to what was expected of ME3, but - both are dramatically different in regards to narrative, both are reasonably tragic, and both are genuinely exceptional. Tonally and thematically, it has one of the best endings in the medium, and this is coming from someone who was relatively dispassionate when it came to the plot of the game.

[uDoh]

I think Forbes is now my BEST WEB SITE. I love it, They pwnd Mr Moriarty of IGN.

Hold the Line

[dfstone]

I think IGN is pretty much on its own. Gamespot had its own article on this that, although was relatively neutral about the whole debate, still it leaned a bit towards the player's side. IGN sucks though. They always give AAA titles a 9.0+.

[SandSkorpion]

Streambeck wrote...

For the record, and completely off topic, but for anyone that hasn't played Infamous 2:

It has two endings, - which doesn't seem like much compared to what was expected of ME3, but - both are dramatically different in regards to narrative, both are reasonably tragic, and both are genuinely exceptional. Tonally and thematically, it has one of the best endings in the medium, and this is coming from someone who was relatively dispassionate when it came to the plot of the game.

Agreed 100%

[rapscallioness]

I keep seeing questions of "artistic integrity" coming up. Artistic vision vs. what fans want kinda thing.

But wait just one moment. Even art has certain rules. Structure. Good art---narrative art---may indeed be thought provoking, but it makes some kinda sense. It seems like "artistic vision" is being equated with "bewilder them with bs".

If the ending is art, then it's bad art. I don't know what happened in the end. There is speculation, then there's just straight confusion. I got kicked out of the end of the story. It all went on some tangent that made no sense to me.

Artistic vision needs to be able to communicate that vision to the intended audience. The audience needs to understand where you're coming from; what your intentions are; what are you trying to say. With that understanding in hand, the audience can then have something to really think about.

With this ending, I feel like I'm scavenging a wasteland looking for clues to try and rationalize it.

If it was a matter of artistic vision, and not simply rushed because of time/money/memory..whatever, then it should have been fleshed out and made more clear.

That's all I'm saying.

This whole thing just makes me shake my head. You had it, BW. You had it right there in your hands. Then you went into some kind of self-destructo mode.

Or, maybe, this is what happens when you push ppl too far. Have them trying to create while sleep deprived; haggard; running on energy drinks and burning candle at both ends. Good stuff never comes from that. Your judgment gets wonky.

Whatever the reason, the ending feels like bs to me. I'm sorry Mac and Casey. I love you guys. I really do. I've got mad respect for you and what you do. I understand that I have no idea how difficult it really is. But! I gotta call bs on this one.

I've done enough bs college papers and presentations to know when a project has run up against a deadline and needs to be wrapped up quickly. I know bs when I see it. The ending feels and looks edited and rushed. Sorry.

I could see the whole StarChild thing being a part of the ending, but not the entire ending. I just feel like I'm missing some game here. Like the rest of the ending.......