1311 réponses à ce sujet

[xxskyshadowxx]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

How come the dude complaining about people complaining about the ending has a "Retake" banner? Hell....I'd love Bioware to death if they gave us the endings they promised...but even I don't have a "Retake" banner.

Wonky.

I own Reptillian Bob a beer for your sig.

That whole thread of his, where this quote came from was just whacky fun!

[Mad-Hamlet]

You know what's freaking me out right now? (Besides a bunch of people telling me what is or is not right or thinking they don't have certain rights)

It's that the people who have responded to my points all have Asari Avatars. Liara avatars...
It's SIGN!
She's mine, only mine!
Mwaahaahahahahaaaaa!!

No, seriously, you can do what you like unless what you do interferes with what others wish to do.
Learn that.

[jules_vern18]

Luc0s wrote...

 Because this article has opened my eyes: http://www.pcgamer.c...-writers-think/ 


I've read that article 3 times and I've read really carefully what each developer had to say. Now I have to say that I agree with them, especially this part:

"But things like “cutscenes” and “endings” are completely authored by the developers, and the developers altering the authored content of a game after the fact has nothing to do with the systemic player-developer collaboration described above. "

I want to clarify, that I still absolutely HATE the ending of Mass Effect 3, but only now do I realize how silly it is that we demand that BioWare changes it. That does not mean that I think BioWare shouldn't change it. I think BioWare should make up their own mind and then THEY should decide what to do with the endings, NOT US.

So if BioWare wishes to change the endings for us, then I fully support them.
If BioWare doesn't want to change the endings but instead they choose to expand the current endings, I fully support them.
If BioWare decides to do nothing, I'll be hugely dissapoined, but I'll still fully support them.
They are within their right to do whatever they want with the narrative in their games and we players have no say over that.

If we players demanded a change within the gameplay, then I'd fully support that, because that is part of the interactive  relationship between player and developer. The developer creates an interactive product, we as the players interact with it and the result of that interactive relationship is gameplay.

But is it fair and/or realistic for players to demand a new ending, especially when the ending is a non-interactive part of the game, a cut-scene that is part of the narrative, the story? Are we players within our right to demand changes in that?

Let me ask you this: Are we in our right to demand a new ending for Lord of The Rings? Is it fair if we demand a new ending for Harry Potter?


And before you come with the argument that games aren't the same as movies, I advice you to read my entire post again, until you understand that demanding a different ending in a game is the same as demanding a different ending for a movie. Yes, games are different, but I already explained why an ending or any cutscene within a game is not part of the interactive experience, it's not part of the interactive relationship between the player and developer. A cutscene is an artistic expression and in my opinion, art should not be changed because the viewer demands it. Art should only be changed if the artist decides that it should be changed.

MintyCool wrote...

If changes are made to the fiction; we feel the repercussions will send devastating ripples throughout the entire industry.

Your argument hinges on a technicality - whether or not the specific parts of the story we're asking to see changed are interactive or not have nothing to do with what we were promised.  It doesn't matter whether a product is interactive or not, consumers have a right to demand change if the finished product does not offer what was promised.  Should fans have been able to demand a new ending to the Lord of the Rings?  YES, if Tolkien had promised one ending to the consumer and decided instead to provide another.  More on this in a moment.

I went to college on an art scholarship that was earned in classes where I was allowed to create art in the way that I so chose.  My grade was dependent on my effort, growth, and knowledge of the medium - not the quality of the finished product.  It was for me, it was mine, and damned if anybody had tried to tell me that it wasn't good enough or
needed to be changed.

But that was college.  When asked to create art (field of graphic design) on commission - i.e contracted to develop a product - my clients have full rights to ask that specific parts of my creation be changed; even if i don't like the changes being made. 

Is private commission the same as mass market production?  No, but the comparison leads to the same point: 
when you create art for yourself, you have no expectations to meet aside from your own.  When you create art for consumption in the marketplace, you are creating a commodity that is subject to the desires and specifications of the consumer.

You could argue that the development of an automobile is an artistic process.  But if you promise a customer that their car will be blue and you sell them a red one (or green, for that matter), they have every right to complain.  YOU may think that the car looks better in blue, but that's not what the customer was promised. 

You could take the example of fine dining, where the process of preparing a gourmet meal iscertainly a culinary art.  But if you ask for your lamb cooked medium-well and the chef gives it to you rare because he thinks it tastes better that way, you have every right to send it back because you aren't being given the choice and variety you were promised. 

Now, back to the overused literature comparison (you used Harry Potter, so I'll do the same):  Let's say JK Rowling had promised fans that the final book would be the end to Harry Potter's journey, but that the magical universe she created would live on in future series.  Let's also say that she promised a definitive ending that would pay respect to the difficult choices Harry had to makealong the way.

And then she fuses Harry with Voldemort, permanently kills all magic so that no future wizards can use it again,
and demolishes Hogwarts. 

Now, before you quote that line and say, "Well, that's her right as an author/artist and we have to accept
it," here's why it would be in the best interest of both Rowling and herfans to change the ending:

(1) In this hypothetical scenario, Rowling has promised more books set in this universe.  Yes, it is her artistic vision, but it's also a franchise: the fans don't want to buy future books that exist in a world without magic, so it is in the interest of the franchise (a larger artistic vision in and of itself) for the ending to be altered.  YES, Rowling has a right to leavethe ending as is, but it is not a disaster or violation of her artisticintegrity to change it, especially considering that she would be theone in charge of changing it.

(2) Again, the final book is acommodity, and the author promised that certain things would happen
that did not.  This is false advertising.  While her artistic vision may have changed since she made the original promises, so too should the promises have changed to reflect that.  She was not creating a painting
to be hung in a museum (viewers absorb), but a product (viewers purchase and own). 

Unlike in a museum context, the author of a commodity created through an artistic process has a market-relationship with the customer; and so the customer's needs have an inherant influence over the development of current and future products. 

Again, the artist behind the product has every right to deny the customers what they want, but it should not be seen as a disaster if  said artist chooses to alter the product to meet the customers' needs.  Just as BOTH
the principles of art and capitalism apply to the situation, BOTH outcomes should be seen as acceptable.

Interactivity has nothing to do with it.

Modifié par jules_vern18, 24 mars 2012 - 01:03 .

[lanep25]

One thing to notice from the article is that the only one who has completed the game from that group is Greg Kasavin. Read his comments, they are pretty insightful. Not completely pro-change, but insightful. All the others have no insider view on the ending itself. They don't know what the issues/problems that are associated with it. Basically they don't have credibility on the issue because know don't know what the issue is, other than the fact that "some fans" want the endings changed. They don't know why they want them changed, and that is key.

Modifié par lanep25, 24 mars 2012 - 01:02 .

[yoshibb]

Luc0s wrote...

Here is another quote from the article I mentioned in my OP.

It's from Garry Whitta and it sums up my feelings quite nicely:

"I read an op-ed which argued that since videogames are a “malleable artform” that get altered and patched all the time people shouldn’t be bothered by this. Well it bothers the hell out of me. Games usually get changed for technical reasons like bug fixes and multiplayer balancing. Altering one of a game’s artistic cornerstones—story—merely to appease the malcontents is wrong. While I’m sure George Lucas would agree about the malleability of art, I think changing the ending of such a high-profile title would set a very disturbing precedent for games.”

So how do they feel about test audiences' reactions completely changing the endings of movies?

[RazorrX]

 You know, if Chris Avellone, who I think of as one of the best writers in the gaming industry, thinks it is okay - then so do i dambit!

If the man who wrote planescape Torment says it is okay, the man who wrote the amazing C&C system in Alpha Protocol, etc. says that gaming companies should listen to the fans and adjust the games accordingly, then by the hells that is good enough for me.  (I guess you can tell I am a huge Avellone fan eh?)

That said, RPG games are very different than shooters, RTS, etc.  The gaming company is actually much more invloved with the customers in a RPG.   Bioware used has leveraged this to become the big powerhouse in the RPG market today.  Look at how they responded to fan input in NWN via free patches that included content.  Look at the romances that they altered in order to appease the fans in the ME games, etc.  They have ALWAYS responded to the fans.  This is a case where for the first time they seem to have really disconnected with many of the fanbase due to the ending.  Even reviewers are saying that the ending is bad (and not just forbes).  

When you make an RPG you enter into a contract with the player that the player has an impact on the game.  This is not the same as when you make a new splinter cell.  When you play Splintercell you ONLY control Sam when there is action/combat involved, never to direct the story.  This is the fundamental difference.  The fans were unhappy with the ending and posted it.  Many demanded a change due to the broken promises of the hype prior to the game and based on the previous games.  The fact that it has taken Bioware so long to respond is what has shocked me much more than the fact that they are responding now.

But I digress - In short: Chris Avellone says it is okay so it is okay. 

[wantedman dan]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I find it interesting that the pack of hyenas in the group turn and cannibalize and ferociously attack their own ex-member the moment they no longer agree with them. Seems to appear now and again their true colours shine through.

I'm curious as to what exactly you define "cannibalization" and "ferociously attack" as.

Anything that the pro-Retake movement says, does, or insinuates.

Apparently, yeah. I know I've been nothing but civil here, lol.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Luc0s wrote...

Here is another quote from the article I mentioned in my OP.

It's from Garry Whitta and it sums up my feelings quite nicely:

"I read an op-ed which argued that since videogames are a “malleable artform” that get altered and patched all the time people shouldn’t be bothered by this. Well it bothers the hell out of me. Games usually get changed for technical reasons like bug fixes and multiplayer balancing. Altering one of a game’s artistic cornerstones—story—merely to appease the malcontents is wrong. While I’m sure George Lucas would agree about the malleability of art, I think changing the ending of such a high-profile title would set a very disturbing precedent for games.”

If that's the case, then the writer shouldn't be making games. As soon as you start offering day 1 dlc and throwing up post credit dlc messages, you don't strike me as being about art first. The entire point of producing a product is to please the consumer. If the consumer is unpleased, the consumer will stop buying.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 24 mars 2012 - 01:00 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I find it interesting that the pack of hyenas in the group turn and cannibalize and ferociously attack their own ex-member the moment they no longer agree with them. Seems to appear now and again their true colours shine through.

YOU'RE BACK! YAY!

He wasn't one of us. That's pretty obvious.

Aww come on you'd miss me if I was gone, life would be so boring. 

[Grasich]

BIO18 wrote...

Shut the hell up all of ya, OP has a point of view, respect it.
I don(t understand why you can't calmly discus things ?

HurHurHur ! Durp Durp my opinion is what matters, oh wow yours does not ! Derpy derpy derp!

... anyway... I agree with the OP, and I do respect the others that gave a CONSTRUCTIVE counter argument and respect their point of view, even if I don't share it.

If someone posts on a forum they need to be prepared for others to disagree with them, and to voice their opinions as well.

As long as this remains civil, or at least in good fun, I see no issue with it.

On a complete OT note, I must say I chuckled at "Derpy derpy derp!".

[Alexraptor1]

The bigger picture has to be viewed here.
This is about so much more than artistic integrity or the vision of the artist.
This is about the entire franchise that is Mass Effect, the games, all the comics and novels of the canon continuity, things which in turn have been created by other artists and has enabled them to express themselves.

That said, is it really right for one writers vision or artistic integrity to throw all that away?
Writers now who had absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation of the universe of Mass Effect?

[Unit-Alpha]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I find it interesting that the pack of hyenas in the group turn and cannibalize and ferociously attack their own ex-member the moment they no longer agree with them. Seems to appear now and again their true colours shine through.

YOU'RE BACK! YAY!

He wasn't one of us. That's pretty obvious.

Aww come on you'd miss me if I was gone, life would be so boring. 

Well, life on the BSN would at least.

So I admit it

[xsdob]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Michael Bay films are not art. They are a commodity to make money.

You can shape a turd into a flower but at the end of the day it's still a turd.

Yes, but in the dangerous world we live in, refusing to protect one product as art could result in many art forms currently considered art ot no longer be considered so. Movies, television, books, comics, all video games, all of them could go from art mediums to goverment or corporate regulated products.

Trying to say that something the goverment does is bad, nope, cuas eyou have no medium to do so. Trying to tell a story in which you make an allusion to something in real life, na-ah, you can't do that because the censor's have the final say and not you. Want to make your work the way you want it without someone's angry letter(not this is more a reference to christan groups banning books than the fanbase) telling you not to and having your worked changed rather than banned, sorry, but only art can;t be change dby someone else, a product an be mandated to change by someone of higher authority.

[wantedman dan]

Luc0s wrote...
Huge difference.

No, it isn't.

[Unit-Alpha]

RazorrX wrote...

 You know, if Chris Avellone, who I think of as one of the best writers in the gaming industry, thinks it is okay - then so do i dambit!

If the man who wrote planescape Torment says it is okay, the man who wrote the amazing C&C system in Alpha Protocol, etc. says that gaming companies should listen to the fans and adjust the games accordingly, then by the hells that is good enough for me.  (I guess you can tell I am a huge Avellone fan eh?)

That said, RPG games are very different than shooters, RTS, etc.  The gaming company is actually much more invloved with the customers in a RPG.   Bioware used has leveraged this to become the big powerhouse in the RPG market today.  Look at how they responded to fan input in NWN via free patches that included content.  Look at the romances that they altered in order to appease the fans in the ME games, etc.  They have ALWAYS responded to the fans.  This is a case where for the first time they seem to have really disconnected with many of the fanbase due to the ending.  Even reviewers are saying that the ending is bad (and not just forbes).  

When you make an RPG you enter into a contract with the player that the player has an impact on the game.  This is not the same as when you make a new splinter cell.  When you play Splintercell you ONLY control Sam when there is action/combat involved, never to direct the story.  This is the fundamental difference.  The fans were unhappy with the ending and posted it.  Many demanded a change due to the broken promises of the hype prior to the game and based on the previous games.  The fact that it has taken Bioware so long to respond is what has shocked me much more than the fact that they are responding now.

But I digress - In short: Chris Avellone says it is okay so it is okay. 

Glad you're thinking for yourself

[ZodiEmish]

Grasich wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I find it interesting that the pack of hyenas in the group turn and cannibalize and ferociously attack their own ex-member the moment they no longer agree with them. Seems to appear now and again their true colours shine through.

Of course we disagree with someone who uses a very poor argument against us. You find this odd, somehow?

Of course Dragoonlordz does. It goes against the entire vision of what they want to paint us as. mindless idiots.

The whole idea that when someone brings an arguement full of fallacies and we point out where the arguement is wrong with logical counter arguements goes againsts the whole pick mind idiots idea.

[Rockpopple]

[quote]antony1197 wrote...

Are they in THEIR right to lie to us outright?
Official Mass Effect Website
http://masseffect.com/about/story/

“Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome.”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

HALF-TRUE - The decisions you made did shape the experience and outcome, but they didn't do so completely, as was claimed.

[quote]Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://popwatch.ew.c...-3-mac-walters/

“[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

FALSE - The presence of the rachni did have consequences in Mass Effect 3, but huge was obviously a gross exaggeration, and they had no presence in the final battle with the Reapers other than an implied one.

[quote]Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://business.fina...-all-audiences/

“I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are optimal for different people”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

MOSTLY FALSE - While not entirely a lie, the endings weren't different enough to be optimal for different people. But was this a Mass Effect 3 promise, or just Walters talking generally about how he approaches games?

[quote]Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.computera...missing-in-me2/

“And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as much as we are anyway.”[/quote]

TRUE or FALSE?

TRUE = The Mass Effect story has largly been crafted by fans. Fan reaction to certain elements introduced in ME1 influenced what they worked on in ME2, and the same for ME3. Not an untrue statement, since he was talking about the Mass Effect overall story, not just the conclusion to ME3.

[quote]Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.360magazi...ferent-endings/

“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say any more than that…”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

TRUE = Whether you want to accept it or not, Mass Effect 3 did have multiple endings. Even if it had 100 different endings, eventually some people would start to get the same endings as others. Though the differences in endings are slight, that wasn't the promise that was made in this sentence. 

[quote]Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.eurogamer...me-people-angry

“Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the architect of what happens."[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

MOSTLY TRUE = Whether you want to accept it or not, in ME3 every decision makes an impact. Do the Geth live or die? Do you cure the Krogan or not? Do you shoot Kaiden in the stomach or let him live? Do you kill Wrex and Mordin or not? Not only that, but decisions made in previous games carry on to ME3. Does Kirahe help you on the Citadel or not? Do you save Maelon's data or destroy it and does Eve die or not?

But only mostly true, because while the player is the architect of what happens, they lose some control at the very end.

I also find it funny that this article was called "Bioware Mass Effect 3 ending will make some people angry"

[quote]Whether you're happy or angry at the ending, know this: it is an ending.
BioWare will not do a "Lost" and leave fans with more questions than
answers after finishing the game, Gamble promised.[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

FALSE = This goes without question.

[quote]“You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people.”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

MOSTLY TRUE = Whether you want to accept it or not, ME3 did answer nearly every question out there. The problem was the answers were either unacceptable, or unbelievable, and that they created more questions than were answered. Still, this is a mostly accurate statement.

[quote]“Because a lot of these plot threads are concluding and because it's being brought to a finale, since you were a part of architecting how they got to how they were, you will definitely sense how they close was because of the decisions you made and because of the decisions you didn't make”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE

NOT ENOUGH CONTEXT = Really, a partial quote with little to no context is being used as BioWare false advertising? For shame. Fix this quote or remove it entirely.

[quote]Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinfor...s-effect-3.aspx

“For people who are invested in these characters and the back-story of the universe and everything, all of these things come to a resolution in Mass Effect 3. And they are resolved in a way that's very different based on what you would do in those situations.”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

MOSTLY TRUE = Again, whether you want to accept it or not, many of the character's personal stories are resolved before the ending. What happens to the Quarians. What happens to the Geth. What happens to the Krogan. What happens to ME2 characters. Most of them were resolved... BEFORE the ending, and they're resolved differently depending on your decisions. What makes this statement partially untrue is that it's rendered mostly moot in the final minutes.

[quote]Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://venturebeat.c...fans-interview/

“Fans want to make sure that they see things resolved, they want to get some closure, a great ending. I think they’re going to get that.”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

FALSE = Though not for a lack of trying. It seems they tried, and failed hard. But not a malicious lie, so I don't know why this belongs here.

[quote]“Mass Effect 3 is all about answering all the biggest questions in the lore, learning about the mysteries and the Protheans and the Reapers, being able to decide for yourself how all of these things come to an end.”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

MOSTLY TRUE = Whether you accept it or not, the game answered big questions in the lore, and the players did decide how things come to an end. The problems is the answers were unsatisfactory, there were more questions created, and the ending kinda sucked. 

[quote]Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”

Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE:

UNDENIABLY TRUE = The Mass Effect series has been largly shaped by fan-feedback. Characters the creators didn't think were breakout characters were given bigger roles because of fan-feedback, just as a small example. Why this quote is in the list boggles the mind.

[quote]Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinfor...PostPageIndex=2

Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] “Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?”

Hudson: “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

NEARLY COMPLETELY FALSE = Sorry Mr. Hudson, but despite the fact that there were 16 different endings, maybe two or three with big differences and the rest very subtle flavours of each other, we pretty much got an A, B, or C, ending.

[quote]“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player decide what your story is.”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

MOSTLY TRUE = I can promise you that the way I've played the ME series and the choices I've made throughout the entire series, my story is different from yours. There's just a better chance that the way it ended was the same as yours.

[quote]Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....in_bioware.html

Mass Effect 3 will shake up the player's moral choices more than ever before, even going so far as allowing the Reapers to win the battle for Earth, according to BioWare's community representative Mike Gamble.[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

MOSTLY TRUE = Aside from the endings, of which I can't recall any had the Reapers winning... tho one did have the Earth destroyed, there were some very gut-wrenching moral choices to make in ME3.

[quote]Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....ry_details.html

"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a totally different way of playing"[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

FALSE = As far as I know, you need to play the multiplayer a little to get enough points for the best ending, if you insist on playing a certain way.

[quote]Casey Hudson (Director)
http://gamescatalyst...active-stories/

“The whole idea of Mass Effect3 is resolving all of the biggest questions, about the Protheons and the Reapers, and being in the driver's seat to end the galaxy and all of these big plot lines, to decide what civilizations are going to live or die: All of these things are answered in Mass Effect 3.”[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

COMPLETELY TRUE = Whether you want to accept the fact or not, you have control over major races in the Galaxy. The fate of the Quarians, Geth, and Krogan are in your hands, not to mention the fate of several individual characters.

[quote]Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.computera...ly-good/?page=2

“There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things - it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who plays it.”
[/quote]

TRUE OR FALSE?

MOSTLY FALSE = Sorry Mr. Hudson. You were right just up until the end with that last sentence. Yes, there's a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game, but it wasn't different for everyone who played it. The journey, perhaps, but not the ending.

Well that was fun. Oh, and whenever I see someone posting this partially-false list of so-called BioWare false advertisements, I'm gonna post this rebuttal. I've got it saved and ready to go, whenever I need it. So either edit the list so it actually reflects falsehoods, or...well... don't.

[AxisEvolve]

Games like Call of Duty are the same as movies. Role-Playing games are not. Each player's choices are supposed to be as important as the story itself. World changing decisions should create waves, not ripples.

[AwesomeDudex64]

It's not art once it hits the market.

Now internet, learn from what I just said.

Modifié par AwesomeDudex64, 24 mars 2012 - 01:04 .

[ket_shee]

I think we should all just calm down...and take a look at this.

[Myrmedus]

Luc0s wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Well, the problem is that once it leaves the dev's hands and they sell it as a product with ****ING DAY ONE DLC it is no longer art and can thus be changed by consumer demand.

That, and we were blatantly lied to, breaking the reader-writer contract.

WRONG!

The cutscenes, narrative and story within games are very much art and always will be art.

Are movies art? If you answer is "yes" than you should also understand why the non-interactive parts of video-games are art.

An integral part of art is the modification and improvement of it based upon constructive feedback and criticism: it is how art evolves and how an artist improves.

The sheer fact it is art validates the process and role of change.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 24 mars 2012 - 01:04 .