1311 réponses à ce sujet

[Unit-Alpha]

DemGeth wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

DA:O wasn't art?

I still think we are all getting in the mindset that any game is art. That's simply not true. No, DAO is not art. There are very few that actually are.

Games like Journey, fl0wer, Child of Eden, etc are.

So what makes it art?

Look at those games and tell me they aren't art. They were built to be art almost entirely. DAO was built around a plot and characters, not art, as is more than evident visually.

[Dethead123]

Grasich wrote...

I leave for half an hour and this thread becomes much more angry.

Allow me to make things better.

I'm afraid I went for Tali. I'll leave the tentacle-monsters to you adventurous types.

[Grasich]

Dethead123 wrote...

Grasich wrote...

I leave for half an hour and this thread becomes much more angry.

Allow me to make things better.

I'm afraid I went for Tali. I'll leave the tentacle-monsters to you adventurous types.

Tentacle hair is hot. Just saying.

[Unit-Alpha]

Dethead123 wrote...

I'm afraid I went for Tali. I'll leave the tentacle-monsters to you adventurous types.

Hey now, asari are the mnost human-like things in game

[Cyph3rX]

DemGeth wrote...

Grasich wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

DA:O wasn't art?

I still think we are all getting in the mindset that any game is art. That's simply not true. No, DAO is not art. There are very few that actually are.

Games like Journey, fl0wer, Child of Eden, etc are.

So what makes it art?

That is a VERY loaded question.

Is it?   :P:P

Okay, what does it mean to be?

[Mavaras]

I found that article the OP linked to be an interesting read.

What I found interesting was a clear pattern emerged. Almost all the responses from individuals that worked for companies I hold in high regard responded in a certain way, while those I have no idea who the hell they are responded in a different way. It could be a coincidence, but I don't think so.

I'm not going to explicitly say what these ways are, because I think anybody that has similar tastes to me already knows what I'm talking about.

Modifié par Mavaras, 24 mars 2012 - 04:56 .

[Dethead123]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dethead123 wrote...

I'm afraid I went for Tali. I'll leave the tentacle-monsters to you adventurous types.

Hey now, asari are the mnost human-like things in game

Obviously you didn't see what Bioware photoshopped for Tali.

[Unit-Alpha]

Grasich wrote...

Dethead123 wrote...

Grasich wrote...

I leave for half an hour and this thread becomes much more angry.

Allow me to make things better.

I'm afraid I went for Tali. I'll leave the tentacle-monsters to you adventurous types.

Tentacle hair is hot. Just saying.

No judgement here.

[DemGeth]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

DA:O wasn't art?

I still think we are all getting in the mindset that any game is art. That's simply not true. No, DAO is not art. There are very few that actually are.

Games like Journey, fl0wer, Child of Eden, etc are.

So what makes it art?

Look at those games and tell me they aren't art. They were built to be art almost entirely. DAO was built around a plot and characters, not art, as is more than evident visually.

Ok, so consumer stuff like DA:O should be determined by what consumers like.  

So now explain why the gay romances weren't taken out when the CC complained.  That is a substantial consumer base that didn't buy the game as a result.  The game loses nothing substantial by taking MM FF out of it.  There's no REASON to keep them in from a PRODUCT stand point.  

[malra]

RedundantAccount wrote...

If all of this is really about semantics, respectfully, I don't think you really understand that point of protests... If someone or a group of someones dislikes something enough to actually form a cohesive protest, we've moved beyond the point of passive words. No, I'm not saying we've escalated to Syrian level violence in the streets either. But, protesting 101: there has to be a strong unifying cause or it will collapse. This "movement" would never have been able to rally the support for Childs Play that it did, for example, based on a bunch of dissatisfied customers "really asking nicely, but it's totally up to you if you want to, but if you could possibly change the endings that'd be great 'cuz a bunch of us really didn't like them".  Imagine the banners. I'm being slightly facetious, but I hope my point is made.

Google "resume action words," for example. Passive wishy-washy words do not get results - on resumes or in protests. If the word "demand" was not used, I promise this whole entire movement would not have received one iota of press coverage or the very attention from BioWare that is its raison d'etre. That's fact. Every protest has a demand. Every single one does - whether it's voiced loudly (i.e "What do we want ___, when do we want it, NOW) variety or softly with passive resistance type movements. 

Just my $.02

actually that is an excellent point.  the squeeky wheel gets the oil.

[Unit-Alpha]

Dethead123 wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dethead123 wrote...

I'm afraid I went for Tali. I'll leave the tentacle-monsters to you adventurous types.

Hey now, asari are the mnost human-like things in game

Obviously you didn't see what Bioware photoshopped for Tali.

That is the real monster So Quarians are essentially humans with a few fingers surgically removed at birth and weird wiring implanted.

...sounds like the husks

[MetalCargo999]

[quote]ashdrake1 wrote...

[quote]MetalCargo999 wrote...

[/quote]

I disagree with the homogenized story.  This form of story telling lends itself to presenting several options the story can go.  Look at Mass Effect 2, for example.  You can actually die, as Shepard, in the end game.  I actually found this ending to be very powerful, and twhen Shepard's role in the conversation was filled by Joker?  Fantastic!  Risk isn't the problem.  Getting it right is the problem.  Do you think Bioware would be making changes or additions if people weren't poking holes through the endings like swiss cheese?  Probably not, because while people may personally dislike the ending, they can't really argue against its validity as an ending.

As for the DLC thing, I totally agree, and it scares me.  But I'm likely not going to play a lot of video games after ME3 because of how terrible it has made me feel about the gaming industry as a whole.  - metalcargo999[/quote]

I personally don't think that is a great example of risky story telling.  Regardless if you have a game where shepard dies his story still continues in the next one. There was going to be a sequel and shepard was the star.  If they had hired t2o more voice actors and had a fill in for shepard, it would have meant something in the long run.  By having mass effect 3 with shepard as the lead it was made canon.

The only thing about the end of 2 that had weight was the fact members of your crew could die, because that carried over. 

I very much think they would make changes and additions if you were not able to poke holes in the story.  Again that is not the sole drive behind this movement.  Many people of the movement want to be able able to put a bullet in the catalyst while shouting "reap this!", then go home and bang the cheerleader.  Enough people that EA would be able to make a fast buck.  I still stand behind Casey being resentful in his response to the fan outcry.  I think he honestly is willing to stand by the ending, it's not biowares call though.  

EA will make money off this and Bioware will take less chances.  This will affect our wallets and biowares stories.
- ashdrake1
[/quote]

You're sort of making my point in a weird way, though.  You're saying that risk, with respect to the Mass Effect 3 story, involves taking away player choice and forcing authorial intent.  This, I would argue, flies in the face of the very nature of this form of story telling.  I said earlier how hijacking your art to make a point instead of using it is not good work.  I think this applies here. 

While I understand where you're coming from, I can't accept such a constrained ending as being good seeing how one of the developers even said that there is no canon for Shepard.  Each of us makes our own canon.  There hasn't been any good justification for sacrificing the nature of this form of storytelling beyond, "because it's the ending.  Obviously."  This really doesn't work for me.  Ultimately, in a strange way, I'm asking Bioware to not sacrifice its art for the sake of polarity, and to do what it always has done, only in increasing measure.

But honestly at this point, just give me closure and fill whatever plot holes appear to exist, and I'm happy.  To watch them on Youtube and see if they're any good.  Then buy them if they're worth it.[/quote]

-MetalCargo999

Not really.  This form of interactive story telling has been this way since game one.  It has been as such for the entire series. It is interactive only to a point.  All of the endings have been the same with a hard choice to make at the end.  We get to modify the story a bit as it goes, but the end results have always been the same.  Sovereign is always destroyed, the collectors are always defeated and the reapers are no longer eating the galaxy.  There not being a cannon for shepard is just not true, points a, b and c are reached regardless.  It's just the bit's in the middle we get fiddle with.

Bioware lets us tweak the story as we go, but the ending is always set in stone.  You can put a bit of personal spin on it, but the results are ultimately the same.  We can choose to save the council, blow up the base or choose red, green or blue.  As far as the over arching story it has little to no effect.  No one listens if you kill or save the council.  Nothing great comes from blowing up or saving the base. Red, green and blue probably has the biggest effect on the story because we have to speculate on it, instead of finding out it did not matter.

Hell my biggest problem with the game isn't the ending, it's choices I made that are flat out irrelevant.  I felt more betrayed by Udina being on the council and another rachni appearing.  Both should have had better repercussions.  But at this point we are back to personal views on what makes a good story and how we think it should have gone.  I would have liked a better telling of those two parts of the story and I still want to know wtf Jorker is doing.

I just think the cost is to high.
[/quote]

But again, look at the vast improvement made to player choice with relation to the overarching story from ME1 to ME2!  Why are we taking one step forward, then two steps back?  Plus, I think it was Casey Hudson himself who said that because this is the end of the series, the developers aren't limited like they were in ME1 and ME2.  Mike Gamble said something like, "how can we give everyone the same ending when they've been playing their Shepard?" (paraphrased, obviously).  Why does taking a risk in ME3 involve going back on those initial comments and even the initial form of story telling?  Why are we not improveing, but instead regressing?  Our demands (maybe not the right word considering the topic of this thread) are for Bioware NOT to stay in a rut and to get better specifically when it comes to "choose your own story" stories.  And the cost when it comes to art I think is an exaggeration.  The cost, when it comes to DLC and how it will change the gaming industry is valid.  But just like players revolted against this, they can, as consumers, revolt against crooked DLC business practices.  The only reason that sales model will succeed is if people give in and buy it.

[Lugaidster]

Cyph3rX wrote...

Mainly because its been done several times over several different mediums, including gaming, like with Fallout 3. Personally, I think "artistic integrity" is just a copout, both those words assume the product was good and the followthrough was honest. What we got for $60 was an ending ripped from another game and sprinkled with plotholes. Essentially, an incomplete product they felt they could charge full price for, and the backlash so far has been staggering.

Neither of those words assume what you claim. Those are only your expectations. That concept can't be defined in relative terms because art is subjective. The only thing you need for an artist and a work to have artistic integrity is for it for the product to be art. It may be stupid to stick to artistic integrity if you are doing something dishonest like selling first day DLC, but then again, the rules for the transaction were set before hand. The author is in no way obligated to change his work after that transaction occured. I want it to be changed, and I can point out that there's a lack of integrity due to the DLC, but that doesn't take the integrity thing off the table. It isn't black and white after all. Some people did like the ending, so the authors are entitled to defend it for them (though I hope they don't).

[The Wumpus]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

We are customers.

We paid money for a product. In the art world, it's called commission. And guess who makes the choices there?

You guessed it, the buyer.

To be fair, commissioning a work of art is not the same as buying a print.

Shakespeare did a lot of commissions for Queen Elizabeth. She paid money, into his own pocket, up front, to write plays she wanted to see. Today, in the same way, most screenwriters work on commission. (Occasionally, a screenwriter manages to write a script "on spec" -- independently -- and find a buyer for it, but much more commonly, spec scripts only see practical use as writing samples and calling cards.) Hiring a screenwriter, a painter, a novelist, or any other sort of creative professional to create the work you specify is different than buying a ticket/print/copy of the game after the work is done. For one thing, your average commission is usually based on the input of one or two people, as opposed to that of thousands if not millions. For another, commission pay tends to go straight to the artists, as opposed to ticket and game sales, which generally go to the middleman (the movie studio, the game studio, etc.).

Crowdsourcing has already accomplished some wonderful things. I don't know if it's necessarily the best method, as a rule, for storytelling. It can help, but it can also ruin; I've seen both.

[Krogan Warlord666]

Art is changed all the time just look through history, Arthur Conan Doyle changed the ending to one of his Sherlock Holmes books because people hated the ending and demanded change.

[KustomDeluxe]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dethead123 wrote...

I'm afraid I went for Tali. I'll leave the tentacle-monsters to you adventurous types.

Hey now, asari are the mnost human-like things in game

Actually, I believe that honor falls to Ashley Williams/Kaidan Alenko.
They're the most human-like things in the game!

[Cyph3rX]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Dethead123 wrote...

Grasich wrote...

I leave for half an hour and this thread becomes much more angry.

Allow me to make things better.

I'm afraid I went for Tali. I'll leave the tentacle-monsters to you adventurous types.

Tentacle hair is hot. Just saying.

No judgement here.

Did someone confuse Hanar with Asari?

[Dethead123]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

That is the real monster So Quarians are essentially humans with a few fingers surgically removed at birth and weird wiring implanted.

...sounds like the husks

DON'T YOU RUIN TALI FOR ME!

[Cobra's_back]

"So yes, when the story in a video-game is bad, or when the end to that story is bad, you just have to suck it up. You are free to express your dissapointment. You are even free to ask BioWare for change, but you are not within your right to DEMAND change."

I believe they are asking them to change it . If the company doesn't change it the customer goes elsewhere. That is the only thing that is going to happen.

[Veryth]

The main thing that a lot of people don't understand about this, including some that were interviewed in the article, was that players were promised a story, from day 1, in which there was no canon and that was their own story.

That was the main pitch for the entire Mass Effect series, and really, you could potentially consider that their artistic vision for the series as well.

[Unit-Alpha]

DemGeth wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

DA:O wasn't art?

I still think we are all getting in the mindset that any game is art. That's simply not true. No, DAO is not art. There are very few that actually are.

Games like Journey, fl0wer, Child of Eden, etc are.

So what makes it art?

Look at those games and tell me they aren't art. They were built to be art almost entirely. DAO was built around a plot and characters, not art, as is more than evident visually.

Ok, so consumer stuff like DA:O should be determined by what consumers like.  

So now explain why the gay romances weren't taken out when the CC complained.  That is a substantial consumer base that didn't buy the game as a result.  The game loses nothing substantial by taking MM FF out of it.  There's no REASON to keep them in from a PRODUCT stand point.  

If there is a push by the fans for something to be added, and the magnitude is greater than the push against it, it is within logical business sense to comply.

[Grasich]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dethead123 wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dethead123 wrote...

I'm afraid I went for Tali. I'll leave the tentacle-monsters to you adventurous types.

Hey now, asari are the mnost human-like things in game

Obviously you didn't see what Bioware photoshopped for Tali.

That is the real monster So Quarians are essentially humans with a few fingers surgically removed at birth and weird wiring implanted.

...sounds like the husks

Personally, this is what I think of as Tali. I ignore that silly photoshop they did.

[Unit-Alpha]

Dethead123 wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

That is the real monster So Quarians are essentially humans with a few fingers surgically removed at birth and weird wiring implanted.

...sounds like the husks

DON'T YOU RUIN TALI FOR ME!

Just go to Google Image Search, turn off safe search and search for Tali. You'll be fine.

[Unit-Alpha]

Grasich wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dethead123 wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dethead123 wrote...

I'm afraid I went for Tali. I'll leave the tentacle-monsters to you adventurous types.

Hey now, asari are the mnost human-like things in game

Obviously you didn't see what Bioware photoshopped for Tali.

That is the real monster So Quarians are essentially humans with a few fingers surgically removed at birth and weird wiring implanted.

...sounds like the husks

Personally, this is what I think of as Tali. I ignore that silly photoshop they did.

So damn good. I love that one, probably the best.

[Wowlock]

DemGeth wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Lugaidster 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.

You really are stretching it there. Mass produced art is still art, whether you like it or not. Demanding that they change the ending because you paid for the game won't get us anywhere. That's about as anoyingly childish and entitled as you can get and does nothing but diminish the value of the movement. If you dismiss it as art, then there's no reader-writter contract in the first place as that only takes place as a result of art. 

Get your act together. Stay civil.

@OP I disagree with you. The decision about the ending was always going to be Bioware's and that it's ultimately their decision (again) on how to address the issues in the game. I'm not the executive producer or the director of it, so yeah, I won't pretend to do their job. But I won't support it if I'm left disappointed. PC Gamer's article goes to prove that it's their decision, nothing more, nothing less.

It's as much their prerrogative to "cave" to demands as is mine to make the demands and no one should feel bad or "entitled" about it, as long as the demands are reasonable in terms of argument (see above).

Day one DLC.

Not art. 

DA:O wasn't art?

No.

It is a Great game...but not art.

It is a product. Even the head-writer of the story back then , said so.

And I am kinda getting tired of listening this ''Art'' arguements. It really cheapened the meaning of 'ART' for me.

Art is not that easy to achieve. Sure you can try to call ANYTHING as art but it won't make it so. You would only delude yourself more.  And there is nothing ''untouchable'' about the art itself.  If you do that, you would only hurt your creativity more.

Think of it as ''making mistakes and learning from them'' . Without someone to tell you, you won't grow your sense of Art or anything for that matter.

If this is Bioware's sense of art in the future....well future for them doesn't seem bright to be honest.