1316 réponses à ce sujet

[DemGeth]

[quote]Baronesa wrote...

uhmm What is your opinion on Mass Effect Deception?

BioWare and Del Rey Books are changing the book to accommodate costumer's feedback.

Why is it ok for BioWare to do that on the 4th Book of Mass Effect, but not good for ME3 endings?[/quote]

This is a dangerous precedent! Producers should not listen to their consumers, that's crazy talk. Producers should do whatever the hell they want, promise whatever the hell we want, and consumer should never question anything. That's what a free market is all about. Corporations ****ting on the little guys.

[/quote]

Guess they didn't like the fact that one of the main antagonists of their game was so obsessed with eating cereal.

[/quote]

Honey nut?

[/quote]

Probably Special K. Harby could lose a few pounds.

[/quote]



It's got to be the honey nut

[FemmeShep]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

Since we are having a really civil/intelligent discussion about artistic integrity, let me pitch a scenario:

http://geek.pikimal....t-name-release/

I believe the above is true. I have my reasons beyond just this article, but this is what I've come to believe. So the scenario is this: two people decided to write the ending themselves, and didn't let anyone else on the writing staff to have any input or allow the ending to have peer review. Despite the fact that the entire game/series always had writing put under the scrutiny/review of the entire writing team.

Not saying you have to believe this. But let's just use it as a hypothetical situation.

Do you guys think the artistic integrity argument still holds weight in this scenario? What is really integrity about two people deciding to break away from the team to finish the ending without their input? That the entire series was ended both for the fans and the writers by two people that had their own idea of how they wanted to end it even if it might not have been a good idea.

Is that still integrity? If this was true, would those that are arguing against the ending being changed, have their opinion change?

It was confirmed not to be Patrick by Stanley, but I only trust him as far as I can throw him.

Chris Priestly said he asked the writer if he wrote it, and he said no. But that doesn't disprove anything. In fact there is more evidence to suggest the writer did really say it than there is proof to say he didn't. 

But that is neither here nor there. I wasn't trying to prove or disprove it. Was just curious if the scenario was true (hypothetically speaking) would that change some of your opinion on the situation in regards to artistic integrity...

Modifié par FemmeShep, 24 mars 2012 - 06:16 .

[Grasich]

Cyph3rX wrote...


Was Kai Leng, but I lol'd anyway trying to picture a giant squid ship with a spoon eating a bowl of that stuff.

/grabs box
ASSUMING CONTROL OF THIS FORM
/looks at fiber content
YOU WILL KNOW PAIN SHEPARD

ROFL this is beautiful. Thank you sir.

[aliengmr1]

FemmeShep wrote...

Since we are having really civil/intelligent discussion about artistic integrity, let me pitch a scenario:

http://geek.pikimal....t-name-release/

I believe the above is true. I have my reasons beyond just this article, but this is what I've come to believe. So the scenario is this: two people decided to write the ending themselves, and didn't let anyone else on the writing staff to have any input or allow the ending to have peer review. Despite the fact that the entire game/series always had writing put under the scrutiny/review of the entire team.

Not saying you have to believe this. Let's just use it as a hypothetical situation.

Do you guys think the artistic integrity argument still holds weight? What is really integrity about two people deciding to break away from the team to finish the ending without their input? That the entire series was both ended for the fans and the writers by two people that had their own idea of how they wanted to end even if it might not have been a good idea.

Is that still integrity? If this was true, would those that are arguing against the ending being changed, have their opinion change?

If this ending was clearly show to have been worked for years, I honestly don't think I would have as big a problem with it. Because it would be better.

I do NOT think the ending was given the time it needed. that is my opinion, but I have seen enough to believe it.

its a bit late so if that doesn't make sense, sorry.

[Lugaidster]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lord, wrong *again.*

Seriously, did you not even read anything I said? I set it out plainly and you still can't comprehend it. I seriously do not understand how this is possible.

At least I attempted to point out your the mistake in your message where you fail to convey by implication that art is subjective. You said "It's simply not true". The intention of that sentence is to state fact not opinion. But ok, let's hear your side, at the very least, try to state how is my interpretation of what you said wrong.

You interpreted my statements as objective statements. They were subjective. That is literally all there is to it. I used descriptors like "simply" because it conveyed how strongly I felt. That is all.

The definition of art is subjective. Therefore, art is subjective. That is what I have been saying this entire time.

Then why debate this game is not art? We aren't debating this for the sake of debate. The whole point of the debate is to discredit anyone saying that they shouldn't change it because of artistic integrity. If the game isn't art, then artistic integrity never comes into play, that's what many are trying to do by arguing it's not. I argue that the game is art, but that artistic integrity is a moot point.

[Unit-Alpha]

FemmeShep wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

Since we are having a really civil/intelligent discussion about artistic integrity, let me pitch a scenario:

http://geek.pikimal....t-name-release/

I believe the above is true. I have my reasons beyond just this article, but this is what I've come to believe. So the scenario is this: two people decided to write the ending themselves, and didn't let anyone else on the writing staff to have any input or allow the ending to have peer review. Despite the fact that the entire game/series always had writing put under the scrutiny/review of the entire writing team.

Not saying you have to believe this. But let's just use it as a hypothetical situation.

Do you guys think the artistic integrity argument still holds weight in this scenario? What is really integrity about two people deciding to break away from the team to finish the ending without their input? That the entire series was ended both for the fans and the writers by two people that had their own idea of how they wanted to end it even if it might not have been a good idea.

Is that still integrity? If this was true, would those that are arguing against the ending being changed, have their opinion change?

It was confirmed not to be Patrick by Stanley, but I only trust him as far as I can throw him.

Chris Priestly said he asked the writer if he wrote it, and he said no. But that doesn't disprove anything. In fact there is more evidence to suggest the writer did really say it than there is proof to say he didn't. 

But that is neither here nor there. I wasn't trying to prove or disprove it. Was just curious if the scenario was true (hypothetically speaking) would that change some of your opinion on the situation in regards to artistic integrity...

Meh, I still think it's fake, but whatever.

I don't think they had any to begin with. When you start copying other games, you lose the ability to claim artistic integrity.

[The Real Bowser]

Luc0s wrote...

It's up to BioWare to decide what to do with the ME3 ending.

And it's up to us to decide how we spend our money, either on Bioware, or on more promising and more reliable companies.

This argument doesn't hold water in the real world, sorry.  But I respect your opinion, since it wasn't "It's art."

[aliengmr1]

Grasich wrote...

Cyph3rX wrote...


Was Kai Leng, but I lol'd anyway trying to picture a giant squid ship with a spoon eating a bowl of that stuff.

/grabs box
ASSUMING CONTROL OF THIS FORM
/looks at fiber content
YOU WILL KNOW PAIN SHEPARD

ROFL this is beautiful. Thank you sir.

oww, sides hurting:lol:

[Unit-Alpha]

Lugaidster wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lord, wrong *again.*

Seriously, did you not even read anything I said? I set it out plainly and you still can't comprehend it. I seriously do not understand how this is possible.

At least I attempted to point out your the mistake in your message where you fail to convey by implication that art is subjective. You said "It's simply not true". The intention of that sentence is to state fact not opinion. But ok, let's hear your side, at the very least, try to state how is my interpretation of what you said wrong.

You interpreted my statements as objective statements. They were subjective. That is literally all there is to it. I used descriptors like "simply" because it conveyed how strongly I felt. That is all.

The definition of art is subjective. Therefore, art is subjective. That is what I have been saying this entire time.

Then why debate this game is not art? We aren't debating this for the sake of debate. The whole point of the debate is to discredit anyone saying that they shouldn't change it because of artistic integrity. If the game isn't art, then artistic integrity never comes into play, that's what many are trying to do by arguing it's not. I argue that the game is art, but that artistic integrity is a moot point.

Read the editted post. I was annoyed that people were using both art and consumer good to defend the ending. It has to be one or the other; making it both creates implications that conflict, killing the entire argument.

[Unit-Alpha]

Grasich wrote...

Cyph3rX wrote...


Was Kai Leng, but I lol'd anyway trying to picture a giant squid ship with a spoon eating a bowl of that stuff.

/grabs box
ASSUMING CONTROL OF THIS FORM
/looks at fiber content
YOU WILL KNOW PAIN SHEPARD

ROFL this is beautiful. Thank you sir.

HAHAHA, that was great!

[Unit-Alpha]

Well, it's been fun you all. If you want to yell at me some more, PM me. I need sleep.

[Lugaidster]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Lord, wrong *again.*

Seriously, did you not even read anything I said? I set it out plainly and you still can't comprehend it. I seriously do not understand how this is possible.

At least I attempted to point out your the mistake in your message where you fail to convey by implication that art is subjective. You said "It's simply not true". The intention of that sentence is to state fact not opinion. But ok, let's hear your side, at the very least, try to state how is my interpretation of what you said wrong.

You interpreted my statements as objective statements. They were subjective. That is literally all there is to it. I used descriptors like "simply" because it conveyed how strongly I felt. That is all.

The definition of art is subjective. Therefore, art is subjective. That is what I have been saying this entire time.

Then why debate this game is not art? We aren't debating this for the sake of debate. The whole point of the debate is to discredit anyone saying that they shouldn't change it because of artistic integrity. If the game isn't art, then artistic integrity never comes into play, that's what many are trying to do by arguing it's not. I argue that the game is art, but that artistic integrity is a moot point.

Read the editted post. I was annoyed that people were using both art and consumer good to defend the ending. It has to be one or the other; making it both creates implications that conflict, killing the entire argument.

I'm annoyed by that too. I will still regard games as a form of art in general, but I think that it being or not will never contradict the purpose of this movement. The game can still be art even if Bioware changes it. Artistic integrity is a whole different thing, and I won't get into that because I don't think it matters. The ones defending integrity of any kind should be Bioware, not fans.

[Grasich]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Well, it's been fun you all. If you want to yell at me some more, PM me. I need sleep.

Night. Think I'm off as well.

[Cyph3rX]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Well, it's been fun you all. If you want to yell at me some more, PM me. I need sleep.

Peace out.

[Jackal7713]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Well, it's been fun you all. If you want to yell at me some more, PM me. I need sleep.

Night buddy.

[Stanley Woo]

Closed for all the usual reasons.

End of line.

[Aznable Char]

 The OP went to bed (it's very late in Europe right now and I thank him for his patience) , but we also talked about one more point that we both agreed upon at the last minute as well . Here it is in brief that both he and I agreed to:

Both the rights of the artist to determine his art should be respected and the right of the consumer to determine the course of his money should be respected and hopefully this will also open an avenue for OTHER game companies not owned by EA , for example, to enjoy fair and true competition