1311 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Um, sorry, that's wrong. The point of the entire pro-ending argument was artistic integrity. Nothing about consumer goods. They specifically contested that it not be considered a product as it would open them up to more holes in their ideas.

Sure, art isn't a strictly defined thing, but the attributes you and the rest of the pro-enders are assigning it are. Artistic integrity is applied to art only, not stuff like a mattress.

Fine, stop using the attributes of art and consumer goods in your arguments, and we're golden.

Firstly: not a pro ender. I thought we had this discussion. Straw men were raised.

Secondly, not used the attributes of art in my argument. Look, it's that man again.

Thirdly: I've no idea what the pro ender art based argument is, sounds pretty daft and absolutist from your description but I suspect bias. If their case hung on it not being a product then it was flawed.

[Unit-Alpha]

Ziggeh wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Sorry, I'm using a different meaning of circular logic that's applied to some specific forms of debating.

The FTC deals with consumer rights. That's as close as we are going to get. To say we don't have the right to merely demand that the problem be fixed is like saying that we don't have the right to express grivences. Nobody is planning to literally force them, so the whining over the word "demand" is just based around us airing grievences.

I think you'll find it's because I'm a pedant. Words are important, otherwise we're just filling the screen with squiggles.

At best "demand" is unhelpful rhetoric, at worst it's inaccurate.

I have zero problem with venting and requesting change, I have done both here myself. I do have a problem with the use of demand when what is meant is ask.

Which is also why I'm not keen on your use of circular.

Lord, circular meaning you have an argument, you use another argument to support it, but it entails changing the initial argument in such a way that it invalidates it. In a sense, looping around. Thus, circular.

You are arguing semantics now. Your wording preference is not the subject of the argument. If you can't understand other people's arguments without applying a filter that overemphasizes certain words, then you're gonna get nowhere.

[Unit-Alpha]

Ziggeh wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Um, sorry, that's wrong. The point of the entire pro-ending argument was artistic integrity. Nothing about consumer goods. They specifically contested that it not be considered a product as it would open them up to more holes in their ideas.

Sure, art isn't a strictly defined thing, but the attributes you and the rest of the pro-enders are assigning it are. Artistic integrity is applied to art only, not stuff like a mattress.

Fine, stop using the attributes of art and consumer goods in your arguments, and we're golden.

Firstly: not a pro ender. I thought we had this discussion. Straw men were raised.

Secondly, not used the attributes of art in my argument. Look, it's that man again.

Thirdly: I've no idea what the pro ender art based argument is, sounds pretty daft and absolutist from your description but I suspect bias. If their case hung on it not being a product then it was flawed.

Again with the straw man. That's just bland deflection. So tell me what you think of the ending.

[Jackal7713]

Torrible wrote...

Is it just when I feel that there a subtle difference between 'deserving an ending' and 'being owed an ending'? If so, which is the default position of the movement?

Why do I have to ask like a simp for something they promised pre-launched? If they want my money again then add to the ending and give me a happy one. I'm not asking . I'm telling them as a consumer.

Edit: removed something that could have been taken in the wrong way.

Modifié par Jackal7713, 24 mars 2012 - 03:22 .

[ashdrake1]

MetalCargo999 wrote...

This does not mean I like the ending, but I love the stories bioware tells. After this, why would they risk trying to do something diffrent? - ashdrake1

I don't think the problem here is the risk they took. Again, there are actually errors in the ending that need to be fixed. Personally, I would have preffered that they would have worked on the dark energy ending, but I know that's not gonna happen. That being said, whatever the ending actually is needs to at least be logically coherant.

They took a tremendous risk.  They killed your Shepard and shook the galaxy like an etch a sketch.  Leaving the fate of the galaxy and the characters so many were attached to up to speculation required a huge set of quads.

It had plot holes, but so what.  Lot's of story's have plot hole, some of them flat out make no sense.  Some times things are ignored in favor of telling the story you want. That is my opinion on that matter.

However going for the bummer ending instead of the feel good movie of the year one is always risky.  Getting the ending "fixed" is going to come at a huge cost in terms of games that want to tell unique stories.  More so for ones owned by the equivalent wall-mart of gaming.

[Unit-Alpha]

Torrible wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Is it just when I feel that there a subtle difference between 'deserving an ending' and 'being owed an ending'? If so, which is the default position of the movement?

For me, we deserve one. That's why I'm okay with paying for ending DLC.

Thanks for clarifying. I think often one position is mistaken for the other.

No doubt. Most people are willing to pay, which is indicative of the "deserving" sentiment.

[RaenImrahl]

Less arguing, more discussion, please.

[Grasich]

Jackal7713 wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Is it just when I feel that there a subtle difference between 'deserving an ending' and 'being owed an ending'? If so, which is the default position of the movement?

Why do I have to ask like a simp for something they promised pre-launched? If they want my money again then add to the ending and give me a happy one. I'm not asking . I'm telling them as a consumer.

I think your forgeting who is paying who here.

No need to get after him, he was merely asking a question.

[Ziggeh]

malra wrote...

i never though they were, i don't think most f us are under the impression that we can legally force them to rewrite the game, i think we are standing up for ourselves however and saying "Hey your game sucked, you lied to us and took our money.  Make it right."  since their are so many of us, i think we have a pretty fair chance.  otherwise, i have no problem never giving them my money again. 

Indeed, and I entirely agree with you there. My point was simply that we don't have a client/service relationship with bioware. I'm not even sure that's what the post I was responding to was implying, but I felt the clarification important.

[Unit-Alpha]

RaenImrahl wrote...

Less arguing, more discussion, please.

Sadly, I wish they were mutually exclusive.

[GreyLord]

Luc0s wrote...

 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?

After all these pages wanted to note something.  PJ DID change the ending to Lord of the Rings in regards to the movies and the books.  Just something a little ironic with your post.

[Jackal7713]

Nyaore wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

Nyaore wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

Art is never finished, only abandoned.
~Leonardo da Vinci

Da Vinci also changed his art several times. This includes the Mona Lisa and The Adoration of the Magi.

So people are saying they can't change the ending because of "Artist integrity"? Interesting

Artistic integrity is a crutch for the artist without integrity.

Hilarious true, seeing as most of the artists I see using the term to describe why they refuse to improve or why they delivered a commission that didn't fit what they were asked for are usually the ones who can't take a constructive critique to save their lives. They also tend to be the ones with the largest number of white knights ready to stroke their egos.
Of course there is something to be said about staying true to yourself with your art, and I've seen some artists stay true to themselves without making complete asses out of themselves, but that tends to take a backseat when you're selling a product.

See that is the problem. If you can't take constructive critique, then you have truely failed as an artist. I love hear feed back about my paintings or photographs. How else will I get better at my art if I only listened to those that like it?

Agreed, tenfold. I'm much the same with my own art. I want you to critique it, I LIVE for critiques. Tear it apart and throw it back in my face if you have to. Just the fact that you're taking the time to give me your opinion on how to improve is worth more than it's weight in gold. Yet so many artists and non-artists just don't seem to understand this. They're happy with staying in a rut, and see any attempts to tell people how to improve as a slight against the artist's character. 
It's sorry day when more people associate critiques with blind bashing than with how helpful they're actually meant to be. Of course that doesn't excuse blind bashing in and of itself, but when people sit down and calmly tell you what you're doing wrong I think that you at least owe it to yourself to take their advice seriously.

I would really like to see your art sometime. What media do like to use?

[Unit-Alpha]

Ziggeh wrote...

malra wrote...

i never though they were, i don't think most f us are under the impression that we can legally force them to rewrite the game, i think we are standing up for ourselves however and saying "Hey your game sucked, you lied to us and took our money.  Make it right."  since their are so many of us, i think we have a pretty fair chance.  otherwise, i have no problem never giving them my money again. 

Indeed, and I entirely agree with you there. My point was simply that we don't have a client/service relationship with bioware. I'm not even sure that's what the post I was responding to was implying, but I felt the clarification important.

We are still a client, by business definitions.

And technically we have a service relationship as we expect them to patch broken elements.

[Dreogan]

RaenImrahl wrote...

Less arguing, more discussion, please.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but we really are discussing! This honestly is one of the cheeriest debates I've seen on BSN in a very long time.

Hop back to page 25 or so for a glorious reductio ad absurdum involving cans of soup!

[Unit-Alpha]

Dreogan wrote...

RaenImrahl wrote...

Less arguing, more discussion, please.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but we really are discussing! This honestly is one of the cheeriest debates I've seen on BSN in a very long time.

Hop back to page 25 or so for a glorious reductio ad absurdum involving cans of soup!

The soup was a lie, damn it.

[Grasich]

Dreogan wrote...

RaenImrahl wrote...

Less arguing, more discussion, please.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but we really are discussing! This honestly is one of the cheeriest debates I've seen on BSN in a very long time.

Hop back to page 25 or so for a glorious reductio ad absurdum involving cans of soup!

Indeed! This has been an extremely entertaining thread!

[Aiyie]

Lili Dragunova wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

Art is never finished, only abandoned.
~Leonardo da Vinci

Da Vinci also changed his art several times. This includes the Mona Lisa and The Adoration of the Magi.

So people are saying they can't change the ending because of "Artist integrity"? Interesting

Not at all, at least not me. I disagree with the "demanding" part of this whole issue, as a demand, and a critique or request are different things. An artist should change his/her art because they want to, and not because it's demanded of them.

its the feeling this community has that the decision to change the ending belongs to them, the consumers, rather than the authors of the story, that has caused people to start slinging around that "entitlement" insult.

[Unit-Alpha]

Grasich wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

RaenImrahl wrote...

Less arguing, more discussion, please.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but we really are discussing! This honestly is one of the cheeriest debates I've seen on BSN in a very long time.

Hop back to page 25 or so for a glorious reductio ad absurdum involving cans of soup!

Indeed! This has been an extremely entertaining thread!

Shh... he might find out about our tangents

[Ziggeh]

Unit-Alpha wrote...
Lord, circular meaning you have an argument, you use another argument to support it, but it entails changing the initial argument in such a way that it invalidates it. In a sense, looping around. Thus, circular.

You are arguing semantics now. Your wording preference is not the subject of the argument. If you can't understand other people's arguments without applying a filter that overemphasizes certain words, then you're gonna get nowhere.

Except the argument you seem to think it invalidated was not one that I made.

If such logic does indeed make a shape I suspect it would not be a circle.

And no, the word in question is literally right there in the op. Demanding a better ending is in fact wrong. But wrong is a fairly broad term, so how about we leave that there.

[Unit-Alpha]

Aiyie wrote...

Lili Dragunova wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

Art is never finished, only abandoned.
~Leonardo da Vinci

Da Vinci also changed his art several times. This includes the Mona Lisa and The Adoration of the Magi.

So people are saying they can't change the ending because of "Artist integrity"? Interesting

Not at all, at least not me. I disagree with the "demanding" part of this whole issue, as a demand, and a critique or request are different things. An artist should change his/her art because they want to, and not because it's demanded of them.

its the feeling this community has that the decision to change the ending belongs to them, the consumers, rather than the authors of the story, that has caused people to start slinging around that "entitlement" insult.

STRAW MAN!!!!

Sorry, I needed to use that argument. We don't. Period. We feel we are deserved a better ending.

[Jackal7713]

Grasich wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

Torrible wrote...

Is it just when I feel that there a subtle difference between 'deserving an ending' and 'being owed an ending'? If so, which is the default position of the movement?

Why do I have to ask like a simp for something they promised pre-launched? If they want my money again then add to the ending and give me a happy one. I'm not asking . I'm telling them as a consumer.

I think your forgeting who is paying who here.

No need to get after him, he was merely asking a question.

Sorry I should have wrote that better Torrible. Didn't mean to offened you and if I did my bad buddy.

[Grasich]

Aiyie wrote...

its the feeling this community has that the decision to change the ending belongs to them, the consumers, rather than the authors of the story, that has caused people to start slinging around that "entitlement" insult.

I don't think anyone thinks that decision is ours, if they do they are deluding themselves. As customers, however, we have the right to demand that we are given the product that we were told we would get. If BioWare refuses... *shrug*... they can say goodbye to a lot of business.

[Unit-Alpha]

Ziggeh wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...
Lord, circular meaning you have an argument, you use another argument to support it, but it entails changing the initial argument in such a way that it invalidates it. In a sense, looping around. Thus, circular.

You are arguing semantics now. Your wording preference is not the subject of the argument. If you can't understand other people's arguments without applying a filter that overemphasizes certain words, then you're gonna get nowhere.

Except the argument you seem to think it invalidated was not one that I made.

If such logic does indeed make a shape I suspect it would not be a circle.

And no, the word in question is literally right there in the op. Demanding a better ending is in fact wrong. But wrong is a fairly broad term, so how about we leave that there.

Fine, it was just guilt by association, whatever. I have to shoot down the arguments of so many pro-enders that it gets hard to remember the entire original stance. Glad you fell outside the normal parameters, somewhat

[JDMiller5150]

Yeah, go ahead and go against the grain if it suits you better. I'm part of a HUGE majority that says the ending was horse s***.

Fix it BIOWARE, because I WANT TO BE ABLE TO PLAY ALL THREE GAMES AGAIN AND AGAIN.

There is absolutely NO replay value in the games anymore.

BIOWARE's fault.

Fix it.

[Dreogan]

STRAW MAN!!!!

Sorry, I needed to use that argument. We don't. Period. We feel we are deserved a better ending.

Mmm, I feel ME3 deserves a better ending. I feel Bioware is obligated (by its commitment to ME3) to fix ME3's ending. I'd like a better ending, but I don't deserve one. If I don't get one I'll certainly take my business elsewhere (which is a demand, which Bioware can also ignore).

Modifié par Dreogan, 24 mars 2012 - 03:24 .