1311 réponses à ce sujet

[Flextt]

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.”

"My gut feeling is that they will add new content to help clarify and
resolve some of the questions that are out there while sticking to their
original creative intentions and I while that’s less bothersome than
calling a complete do-over, as a storyteller it still bugs me."

Of course it concerns me to demand from an author to change ("change" in the broadest meaning possible). I don't like that either. I truly sympathize with them, if they are suffering, because they feel their work is undervalued. BUT, this is about quite more than appeasing malcontents. The ending can be expanded without retconning it. I don't even believe the ending sequence is nothing but a dream anymore, but if Whitta states "I’ve always felt that games like Mass Effect are all about living with the consequences of your choices", then where are my consequences to live? All in vain? Not even having prepared the next cycle?

[Bourne Endeavor]

When Casey makes promises that are blatantly false in the final product. We have every right in the world to demand he make changes and adhere to those promises. We also have the right to inform BioWare their endings are objectively terrible when evident supports this notion. Whether you demand, suggest or encourage they change it is merely semantics. I imagine that is a better alternative than simply writing BioWare off as a quality game developer.

This artistic integrity argument is becoming more of an excuse to justify poor, incomprehensible writing. If I submitted these endings to a publisher, I would be laughed out the office. That may sound harsh but the reality is the plotholes are that bad. We are holding BioWare to both the promises made to proper writing. They did not have to promise our choices would matter nor did they need to acknowledge us as co-creators, but they did in an effort to market the game. We paid good money for what arguably is an incomplete product. I can compromise on paying for DLC if it fixes the endings.

[wantedman dan]

Luc0s wrote...

Yes it it. The fact that you do not understand the difference only shows your ignorance.

wantedman dan wrote...

What you're failing to realize is the fact that Mass Effect transcends that very... basic model of art you're describing in the OP. When daVinci painted the Mona Lisa, did he require the meticulous, step-by-step involvement from Lisa? Better yet, did he require any involvement from the viewing community?

No, he didn't. And that is why your OP is fallacious and based solely in an incorrect premise.

Something loses any grasp at "artistic integrity" when it a) becomes a commodity to be purchased and sold at random, has pieces necessary for a wholesome completion forcefully removed to be sold and purchased at a later date, in another medium, etc., and c) when said art completely interfaces and interacts with the person using it.

Sure, those cutscenes were completely derived from their creative minds--however, it took MY decisions, MY emotional input, and MY drive to get to that scene and that's just something you're not either a) accounting for, or understanding. I'm reticent to decide which one, although I'm leaning towards option B due to your retaliatory and condescending nature.

[Unit-Alpha]

Luc0s wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Luc0s 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.

No true scotsman fallacy.

I truly was "one of you", but not anymore. Just look at my sig to see the proof that I indeed was part of the Retake movement. I even donated $10 to Child's Play to support the Retake movement (and to support Child's Play ofcourse).

You switched teams and are now outright attacking Retake people? Over one article? Yeah, you weren't fully on our side to begin with.

God, you would do so well in communist China or the Soviet Union.

Still a non-true scotsman fallacy.

I'm not attacking anyone directly. I'm only "attacking" the movement itself. YOU'RE the one who's attacking me personally. You're acting like a little child with a temper-tantrum. Grow up.

I just reported your post. Personal attacks are not premitted on the BSN.

Yeah, how did I attack you personally?

I didn't. Reported for attacking people with the WRONG statement.

Still waiting, bro. I would love to see my personal attacks on you, mainly because it indicates that I had a stroke and fell onto the keyboard, accidently attacking you with words written from my spasms.

And I would need to get medical attention for that.

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 24 mars 2012 - 01:17 .

[Madecologist]

I noticed something.

This has become a need versus want debate. The most basic debate in psychology. I hope I am not the only one that realised this...

[Mad-Max90]

Looks like we got a moriarty clone in our midst

[durasteel]

MystaisPC wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...
BioWare invoke the deus ex machina. That is NOT art.

Exactly.  And just to clarify:

A deus ex machina Latin: "god out of the machine"; plural: dei ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. 

The worst part is that in this case, there is no "seemingly unsolvable problem." The AI/Organic issue has already been resolved in the Legion and EDI plot lines--synthetics are people, too. This unit has a soul. Joker has a girlfriend. We have closure, already.

Not only does the Star Child Reaper God appear to suddenly and abruptly solve the problem, it first announces by devine fiat that the problem still exists, unsolved and menacing. It's one thing to use your plot device to suddenly solve the big problem, it is quite another to use your plot device to derail the plot, announce a new central conflict in the narrative that the protagonist doesn't care anything about, and then conclude the entire story by forcing a choice among nonsensical "solutions" to this new irrelevant problem.

Did anyone go into the final act thinking "Damn, what am I going to do about artificial intelligence--it's such a threat to organic life!"? No, you didn't. You went into the final act wondering how Shepard was going to stop the giant space monsters from destroying all the space-faring races of the galaxy, starting with the humans.

The giant space monsters were, of course, robots... but it didn't really matter. If the Reapers were giant psychic space cockroaches and indoctrination was some kind of space cockroach hive mind thing, Shepard and the rest of the galaxy would have done exactly the same thing. AI was a complete non-issue. Keeping the galaxy from getting trashed, that was the central motivating factor of my Shepard. You cannot prevent the Star Child Reaper God from trashing the galaxy, so the end just offered three colors of failure.

Now, after putting all those hours into each of my several Shepards, I am not satisfied with inevitable, unavoidable failure. I don't care about AI. My Shepard has AI friends. I care about saving the galaxy, and if there is no ability, no matter what choices I have made, to actually save the God damn galaxy in the end, then the end is a steaming pile of crap. That's not art, that's insulting.

Modifié par durasteel, 24 mars 2012 - 01:17 .

[_ShadowHawk]

Pottumuusi wrote...

Hasn't this been covered before?
They have the right to make any sort of ending they want.
I have a right to think that their ending is terrible and say that it would be better if they did X.
They have the right to change or not change the endings if they want to. They just have to decide if they like their "artistic integrity" or whatever better than they like my money.

Well said. I don't like the ending because frankly, it blows as a piece of writing. It breaks faith with those invested in the story in an incredibly clumsy and slipshod manner. BioWare can do with that what it will, but if they like customers buying what they produce they need to not have their patrons’ opinion be that their stuff blows. Pretty simple really.

[AtlasMickey]

Wow finally someone is talking some sense.

Well-written, OP.

[katamuro]

Madecologist wrote...

I noticed something.

This has become a need versus want debate. The most basic debate in psychology. I hope I am not the only one that realised this...

Yeah, I see it too. But its too late for them, too late. *initiating neutron purge

[evolsokar]

READ THIS ARTICLE PLEASE...
http://gotgame.com/2...fect-3s-ending/

[ZLurps]

@LuC0s

I think I may understand your point, and I can respect that, even though I'm not sharing it. I think your messages about the subject in this and other threads were great read, you actually think of these things.

That said, I also respect Retakers, I'm not one of them, but for me they present the best hope there is for games to have proper planning, resources, development time and money, because corporations do not exist to make art, they do exist to make money.

If corporations can always use "art" as "get out of jail" card, what do you think will happen to budgets? If EA get's away for delivering product that isn't what was advertised they have no reason to invest a lot in production.

That said, in case of ME3 where product seems to lack features promised to customers NOT because they planned delivering it like it ended, but because scheduling and perhaps some other things went awry, it's very difficult to see art aspect in this at all.

[Dragoonlordz]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Luc0s 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.

No true scotsman fallacy.

I truly was "one of you", but not anymore. Just look at my sig to see the proof that I indeed was part of the Retake movement. I even donated $10 to Child's Play to support the Retake movement (and to support Child's Play ofcourse).

You switched teams and are now outright attacking Retake people? Over one article? Yeah, you weren't fully on our side to begin with.

God, you would do so well in communist China or the Soviet Union.

Well to be fair you were with Bioware I assume for most of their games and started attacking them over one ending. Kind of similar in principle. 

[Unit-Alpha]

Luc0s wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Luc0s 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.

No true scotsman fallacy.

I truly was "one of you", but not anymore. Just look at my sig to see the proof that I indeed was part of the Retake movement. I even donated $10 to Child's Play to support the Retake movement (and to support Child's Play ofcourse).

You switched teams and are now outright attacking Retake people? Over one article? Yeah, you weren't fully on our side to begin with.

God, you would do so well in communist China or the Soviet Union.

Still a non-true scotsman fallacy.

I'm not attacking anyone directly. I'm only "attacking" the movement itself. YOU'RE the one who's attacking me personally. You're acting like a little child with a temper-tantrum. Grow up.

I just reported your post. Personal attacks are not premitted on the BSN.

Yeah, how did I attack you personally?

I didn't. Reported for attacking people with the WRONG statement.

You guys (especially you) are really childish.

I think I finally understand why this forum has such a bad reputation on the internet (on other forums and even outside forums BSN has a bad reputation).

I'm done with this. I'll be hanging on The Witcher forums for those who wish to speak with me without these children interfering.

See ya!

Bye! Nice talking to you!

Also, reported for attacking me personally as childish

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 24 mars 2012 - 01:19 .

[wantedman dan]

Luc0s wrote...
You guys (especially you) are really childish.

I think I finally understand why this forum has such a bad reputation on the internet (on other forums and even outside forums BSN has a bad reputation).

I'm done with this. I'll be hanging on The Witcher forums for those who wish to speak with me without these children interfering.

See ya!

Yeah, you sure do have a lot of valence in labeling others as children.

[ashdrake1]

withneelandi wrote...

ashdrake1 wrote...

withneelandi wrote...

I don't necessesarily think they should change the ending to mass effect 3. I don't think it was a good ending, but I am uncomfortable with the idea of a writer being presured by the fanbase to change something they have written after the fact.

There are a few reasons I don't think this argument holds up with mass effect 3...

The idea of "authorship" is far more complicated in a game like mass effect than in novel or film in the sense that it asks the player to take part and make choices on how the narrative will progress, the problem with mass effect 3's ending is not that it is bleak, or even that it is open ended, but that it seems to render all the choices the game asked the player to make meaningless. For me looking at the game as a narrative, it sets up a sort of 2 way narative with the player then chooses to ignore that convention at the narratives conclusion.

The idea of amending a text after the fact is not a new one, the idea of the directors cut is long established in "proper" art like movies. Especially where technology or time constraints have curtailed what the director could do. I strongly suspect the ending we got in mass effect 3 was less the creative teams vision and more a compromise of time or tecnology. It would be very hard for the team to state that in public but I that is the impression I get from playing the game. The last section felt rushed and disjointed from the rest of the story.

Finally, I think video games can be "art". I'm not sure mass effect 3 is. One of the things that makes art, art is that the primary motivation is "art for arts sake", i.e not to make profit. I find it hard to let a writer fall back on "artistic integrity" when a game ends with a prompt to buy future DLC.

All that said I am still torn on the idea of an amended ending. I think the end was terrible, but I think it would set a horrible example and would frankly lead to a campaign like this any time a game ends in a well thought out, but perhaps leftfield or unexpected way.

Basically, the end is terrible and I don't think we should defend it on the basis of artistic integrity but while chaning this ending seems reasonable it would set a terrible precident and lead to an internet campain to change the end of EVERY major video game franchise that dared take an unexpected approach. It would have a chilling effect on creativity in viedo game in the long term.

A developer will be wary of sparking such a campaign, and getting bad publicity or paying out the costs of developing new content and so won't take any risks when making games. That is far worse for gamers than this ending being rubbish.

So by that logic you are saying many great film makers do not want to make a profit on their films.  That is ludicrous.  Artist want to keep being able to make art.  They very much would like to turn a profit to enable this. 

Also harry potter is dumb.  Could have used the time spinner to save just about everyone.  I don't demand that be changed.  I hate all of the star wars prequels.  I hate the additions to star wars (btw is exactly what people are asking for.)  I was originally sold a product where Han shot first.  I was lied to by the original film.  I have yet to hear of one FTC complaint for Lucas to fix his endings.  I don't want to shoot the elusive man and hear him scream Nooooo!

I didn't say something that looks to turn a profit isn't art, I was talking about the primary motivation. The point I'm making is that I find it difficult to buy the wounded artist argument from a game with such a strong commercial element. By that I mean the existence of enhanced collectors editions, day one DLC, dlc prompts at the end of a game.

Put simply when the narrative ends with a message about future DLC it becomes hard to argue that this is art for arts sake and defend the artistic integrity of the work.

I honestly think Me3 was concieved as product first art second, not the other way round.

I don't agree with this.  It is a diffrence of opinion.  It also is a precedence to make art less important in games.  Generic story games sell by the truckload.  Look at the modern war series, or even Halo.  Why take the effort to make a compelling story when mass shooter xiii sells just as well or better. 

You honestly don't think the story is important to the company?  There is probably a larger audience for a less intelligent story with the same mechanics.  Why do you think they have the skip RP option.  It's to try and draw in those crowds. 

People start demanding that a company spend money to "fix" a story makes a company take less chances.  Most people like simple stories more.  Last year cars 2 made over a 100 million more than Hugo.  I can't imagine anyone could state cars 2 was a better movie, It just would make zero sense from my perspective, but there it is. 

[Phattee Buttz]

I do feel bad for all the people who worked so hard on this game.

I do not feel bad for whoever it was that signed a deal with the Devil aka EA.

[Unit-Alpha]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Well to be fair you were with Bioware I assume for most of their games and started attacking them over one ending. Kind of similar in principle. 

You dirty dog, you

[justlogme]

If Bioware does nothing then i am in my right to vote with my wallet and simply look for a better game developer that sells games instead of  crappy art.

[ZodiEmish]

Luc0s wrote...


You guys (especially you) are really childish.

I think I finally understand why this forum has such a bad reputation on the internet (on other forums and even outside forums BSN has a bad reputation).

I'm done with this. I'll be hanging on The Witcher forums for those who wish to speak with me without these children interfering.

See ya!

100 Quatloos says he replys again.

[Spaceguy5]

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.

Heck even the interactive parts are art. It's just a form of art that's, well, interactive.