1311 réponses à ce sujet

[Jackal7713]

MetalCargo999 wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

So your saying if there's more bigoted people out there, that you couldn't make a game with gay romances...because it would cost you sales?

You could obviously make it.  You probably won't make a lot of money off of it though.

Did you know DA:O  had a gay romance in it?  Seems like that sold pretty well.

[Dethead123]

Johnnycide wrote...

Well maybe they should include two versions of these endings as well, the original (for the people who want to be able to fill in the blanks themselves) and a revised edition (where there aren't enormous leaps in logic).

Yeah it's called "Those who were satisifed with the ending's logic fallacies can just not buy the dlc" xD

[Teacher50]

Faulty logic. Can't agree with OP.

[Grasich]

aliengmr1 wrote...

You know EA just love this argument. Seriously. By all means, surrender whatever influence you have, which is almost nothing anyway. Giving yourself moral limits when dealing with EA is the silliest thing I have ever heard of. EA looks at you and sees ---------> $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

What?! EA is all about art and artistic freedom they don't...

Oh wait...

www.youtube.com/watch

[ashdrake1]

[quote]MetalCargo999 wrote...

[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.[/quote]

I would have loved it if the end had played out like ME2 with hard choices that put each of your milatary assets at risk.  Working with them as you worked with your crew in 2.  That in my mind would have been the perfect way to do the end.  Would have felt much more interactive and making our choices matter.  


I would have loved it if the end had played out like ME2 with hard choices that put each of your milatary assets at risk.  Working with them as you worked with your crew in 2.  That in my mind would have been the perfect way to do the end.  Would have felt much more interactive and making our choices matter. 

I think the huge step backwards was for a obvious reason.  EA.  I don't think they were given the time to do the ending they wanted.  I still think it would have ended more or less the same, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts they were not given the time or budget to implement it.  They flat out said they wanted to do a indoctrination thing but it was to hard.  That's bull.  Given the time and resource they could have accomplished it.  Instead they did the best they could within the given time.  They did their best with a risky memorable ending.  Regardless of it being good, it was damn effective.  Look at the speculation as to what happens next on the forums.

The war against DLC has already been lost.  Bethesda made a metric ton of money off horse armor despite the vocal complaints against it.  Now studios won't have to put much thought into an ending because they can just charge you to fix it.  This going to be much worse than a day one dlc, now you will need to pay more to finish the game.  I strongly think this will have a large impact on story telling and as you agree the DLC.  I won't stop playing games because of it, but I will in future look back at this being a major stepping stone in our unpleasant nickle and dime future.

[Unit-Alpha]

DemGeth wrote...

yes.  with what you are saying I wouldn't want to argue morality either.  

Obviously from a moral perspective, I would rather have them, but the fact of the matter is from a business perspective, this would not be the case.

I'm a business minor, just FYI. I think in business terms mainly. Just a disclaimer.

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 24 mars 2012 - 05:21 .

[MetalCargo999]

Jackal7713 wrote...

MetalCargo999 wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

So your saying if there's more bigoted people out there, that you couldn't make a game with gay romances...because it would cost you sales?

You could obviously make it.  You probably won't make a lot of money off of it though.

Did you know DA:O  had a gay romance in it?  Seems like that sold pretty well.

Ok I better clarify before this gets out of hand.  DemGeth presented a hypothetical situation where if the majority of people in a given market were prejudiced against gays, then a game featuring gay romance should not be presented.  I said, purely from a business point of view, that they obviously could make one, it just wouldn't sell. 

[Unit-Alpha]

Jackal7713 wrote...

MetalCargo999 wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

So your saying if there's more bigoted people out there, that you couldn't make a game with gay romances...because it would cost you sales?

You could obviously make it.  You probably won't make a lot of money off of it though.

Did you know DA:O  had a gay romance in it?  Seems like that sold pretty well.

DemGeth posed the situation where keeping them in would cost sales, rather than the actual case.

[Jackal7713]

Dethead123 wrote...

Johnnycide wrote...

Well maybe they should include two versions of these endings as well, the original (for the people who want to be able to fill in the blanks themselves) and a revised edition (where there aren't enormous leaps in logic).

Yeah it's called "Those who were satisifed with the ending's logic fallacies can just not buy the dlc" xD

I got $100 saying they would write posts saying "I want DLC. Why did you change it, its Art" " Didn't you know that its was going to be hung in the Musée du Louvre?"

[Jomino]

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.

I agree with the idea that video games
are a form of art. However, most good artists die sad and hungry.
These developers are no picaso, no Micheal angelo, they are employees
working for a company that is paying them to make them $$$. Do you
really think if these so called artists are so free spirited and
artistic they would be coloring within such confined squares? No.
They are simply making a product that they hope will sell, the only
thing in their favor is the fact that the last two games did great,
otherwise no one would have cared if the ending was bad and EA would
have just lost money, end of story. If they wanna be "artistic"
they can do it somewhere else, but when I pay for a commodity I
expect to like it, or at least know that it was well writen and not
rushed or having the feeling the whole ending was writen by 2 year
olds.



The way I see it is they only have two
options; Do their job, or don't get paid. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Unit-Alpha]

Grasich wrote...

aliengmr1 wrote...

You know EA just love this argument. Seriously. By all means, surrender whatever influence you have, which is almost nothing anyway. Giving yourself moral limits when dealing with EA is the silliest thing I have ever heard of. EA looks at you and sees ---------> $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

What?! EA is all about art and artistic freedom they don't...

Oh wait...

www.youtube.com/watch

I've seen that. It is incredibly disturbing.

[Cyph3rX]

DemGeth wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

So your saying if there's more bigoted people out there, that you couldn't make a game with gay romances...because it would cost you sales?

For a company like Bioware that is owned by a publically traded company, EA, which focuses on profits, yes, this is the case.

So you're in favor of censorship of anything sold, that you haven't classified as art?


And I'm sorry what was that definition again?

I didn't say censorship. From a business perspective, this is the logical thing to do. Period.

I'm not gonna argue morality.

yes.  with what you are saying I wouldn't want to argue morality either.  

Except you're trying to tape philosophy onto economics.

Companies are in business to make a profit.
Theres a large group of people willing to buy your product, but hate aspect A of it, and thus will not buy it until it is removed/replaced.
Company wants to maximize the utility of its product to gain the largest amount of profit.
Company replaces/removes aspect A.
???
MOAR PROFIT.

Seriously, if you're just going to ad hominem all over the place instead of legitly looking at the argument presented, stop posting please.

[Lugaidster]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lugaidster 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.

That's just a subjective definition. Art is art, whether you like it or not. Maybe those games are examples of fine art, so what? Crappy art has existed forever, it's still art (that's why it has art as part of the name). Everything you quoted is the result of creative work and art is:

"the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also :works so produced" - Merriam Webster

What is aesthetic is subjective, so you can't objectively disregard a work as not art because it's not subjectively appealing to you. At most, you can say this isn't art for me. But that's about it. 

Fine, so everything is art, including stuff people scribble on the walls of bathroom stalls. If you want that to be your definition, so be it.

It's not my definition, it is the accepted definition on the english (and many other) language. If you don't like the english language definition for the word, why use the word in the first place. The game is not fine art, I agree on that, but so what. Not everyone is a fine artist, I'm not comparing Bioware to Da vinci, but the Da vinci types aren't the only types of artists. 

I just feel that the whole discussion on art degenerated to the point where everyone is claiming that their definition of art is *the* definition of art. This game is art as we can regard it as the result of creative work following aesthetic principles (how much is up for discussion), the qualitative aspect is entirely subjective. This may well be crappy art for many, but it's still art and comparing it to a scribble on a bathroom stall is as silly as comparing it to the Mona Lisa. This stuff isn't black or white.

[Grasich]

ashdrake1 wrote...

<Wall of Text>

Would just like to throw out that saving the Rachni DOES help you. If you save them twice, they'll be on your side. Save them only in the third game though and they turn on you.

Udina on the councel was very meh... But it was reasonable with Anderson's personality.

[Johnnycide]

Dethead123 wrote...

Johnnycide wrote...

Well maybe they should include two versions of these endings as well, the original (for the people who want to be able to fill in the blanks themselves) and a revised edition (where there aren't enormous leaps in logic).

Yeah it's called "Those who were satisifed with the ending's logic fallacies can just not buy the dlc" xD

I'm not in favor of making it a DLC you have to buy, while I do understand making numerous endings will cost Bioware time and money, I believe the numerous endings were what was originally intended and should not have to be sold separately. 

But, if that's what it takes for Bioware to admit to the shortcoming of their product then so be it, I will pay my $10 to get the product fixed. 

[Jackal7713]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

MetalCargo999 wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

So your saying if there's more bigoted people out there, that you couldn't make a game with gay romances...because it would cost you sales?

You could obviously make it.  You probably won't make a lot of money off of it though.

Did you know DA:O  had a gay romance in it?  Seems like that sold pretty well.

DemGeth posed the situation where keeping them in would cost sales, rather than the actual case.

Humm well thats false.

[Dethead123]

MetalCargo999 wrote...

DemGeth presented a hypothetical situation where if the majority of people in a given market were prejudiced against gays

Yeah like the 70's-80's. And back then it was impossible for people to buy video games that had the capacity of showing gay romance. So it's a moot point.

[DemGeth]

Anyways that was fun.

[Grasich]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Grasich wrote...

aliengmr1 wrote...

You know EA just love this argument. Seriously. By all means, surrender whatever influence you have, which is almost nothing anyway. Giving yourself moral limits when dealing with EA is the silliest thing I have ever heard of. EA looks at you and sees ---------> $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

What?! EA is all about art and artistic freedom they don't...

Oh wait...

www.youtube.com/watch

I've seen that. It is incredibly disturbing.

I would not be surprised if that man literally sees people as walking, talking wallets.

[Lugaidster]

Jackal7713 wrote...

@Lugaidster If Da Vinci could change his art, and has a greater standing then a video game company, why can't Bioware?

Who says they can't? All I'm saying is that it's their prerrogative. 

[Unit-Alpha]

Lugaidster wrote...

It's not my definition, it is the accepted definition on the english (and many other) language. If you don't like the english language definition for the word, why use the word in the first place. The game is not fine art, I agree on that, but so what. Not everyone is a fine artist, I'm not comparing Bioware to Da vinci, but the Da vinci types aren't the only types of artists. 

I just feel that the whole discussion on art degenerated to the point where everyone is claiming that their definition of art is *the* definition of art. This game is art as we can regard it as the result of creative work following aesthetic principles (how much is up for discussion), the qualitative aspect is entirely subjective. This may well be crappy art for many, but it's still art and comparing it to a scribble on a bathroom stall is as silly as comparing it to the Mona Lisa. This stuff isn't black or white.

Sorry, but claiming that art has an objective definition is patently untrue. The term is incredibly subjective.

And we aren't even talking about content here.

[MetalCargo999]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

MetalCargo999 wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

So your saying if there's more bigoted people out there, that you couldn't make a game with gay romances...because it would cost you sales?

You could obviously make it.  You probably won't make a lot of money off of it though.

Did you know DA:O  had a gay romance in it?  Seems like that sold pretty well.

DemGeth posed the situation where keeping them in would cost sales, rather than the actual case.

That's what I meant.  My bad.

[DemGeth]

Jackal7713 wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

MetalCargo999 wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

So your saying if there's more bigoted people out there, that you couldn't make a game with gay romances...because it would cost you sales?

You could obviously make it.  You probably won't make a lot of money off of it though.

Did you know DA:O  had a gay romance in it?  Seems like that sold pretty well.

DemGeth posed the situation where keeping them in would cost sales, rather than the actual case.

Humm well thats false.

False doesn't matter in the arguement it's theoritical  

[Cobra's_back]

Cyph3rX wrote...

aliengmr1 wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

"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.

And make Bioware cry!!!  th...tha...that's crazy. They might hate us and stop making things for us to buy. You're mad I tell you. *whispers*  they're listening. musn't upset them. shhhhhh:?

Personally, with what they've released lately, I think they should stop and take a moment to look at their past and present business models objectively. Starting with every game after ME2's release.

I agree.


I hate the fact that Art integrity is always thrown around. There is a branch of Art called Commercial Art. Students are taught to design and bring concepts together to be sold for profit. A greeting card could be a form of this Art. The bottom line is BioWare needs to produce product that sells.

[Unit-Alpha]

Jackal7713 wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Jackal7713 wrote...

MetalCargo999 wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

So your saying if there's more bigoted people out there, that you couldn't make a game with gay romances...because it would cost you sales?

You could obviously make it.  You probably won't make a lot of money off of it though.

Did you know DA:O  had a gay romance in it?  Seems like that sold pretty well.

DemGeth posed the situation where keeping them in would cost sales, rather than the actual case.

Humm well thats false.

Psst... between you and me, it was a crappy analogy.

@DemGeth: NOTHING TO SEE HERE, JUST PASS THIS POST BY!

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 24 mars 2012 - 05:24 .