1311 réponses à ce sujet

[Unit-Alpha]

babachewie wrote...

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.

Not once its done and its been paid for. Trust me. I'm an illustrator 

Yeah, except the consumer can refuse to pay if it isn't what the comission entailed.

We can't examine our games in a cursory fashion and decide if that's what we were advertised.

[Unit-Alpha]

Dridengx wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

LOL, you really don't understand consumer rights, do you?

At all.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm

Hate to interupt your laughing but how is that FTC report on Bioware going? Still think your consumer rights were violated? yeah....

Derp, I was linking the OP about consumer rights, not making a comment on that.

Stop projecting.

[Atroposs]

They can keep their crappy ending if they give me my money back. Feels really bad pay money for something that just makes you feel sad and unsatisfied. I play games to have fun, not to feel like s**t. Avellone also says in that very same article: "Our goal is to entertain our players. No one knows more about what they consider “fun” than the player themselves.".

They also promised that our decision would affect the ending. That clearly didn't happen. While I think artistic integrity is worth preserving in some degree, I also think that BioWare should expand this piece of art by adding alternative endings with more diversity.

[wantedman dan]

Madecologist wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

If they (the artist) decide that they want to change their art, they are free to do so. But we have no right to demand a change within art. To demand that an artist changes his art is silly to say the least. We may voice our displeasure. We may decide not to buy future products of the artist. We may even suggest the artist to change his art. but we cannot DEMAND the artist to change his art.

This, people need to understand the distinction.

You need to understand the distinction between a commodity and art.

[Spectre-00N7]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Wow, it's funny because I didn't actually say it would hold up in court, you've jumped the gun.

I don't think he/she know that the reader-writer contract is not a legaly binding contract.

[Motherlander]

pjotroos wrote...

Movie endings are being changed all the time. They screen it for test audience and if the reaction is negative, they try something else. There clearly was no impartial test audience for this one. We're the test audience. Our reaction is negative.

Very good point. Many movies have been changed. And in many cases there are alternate ends like with I am Legend.

I know from the wickis that Starshiptroopers was changed because of a test audience. And in my opinion, the changes made the movie better from my point of view.

I always assumed that Bioware would use test audience for their games. But perhaps they didn't.

Perhaps they only used them to identify glitches. But not for the story itself.

I am sure if Bioware had used an independent test audience they would have realised the ending was not good enough.

The biggest mistake Bioware made was not realising that they were making more than an average game. They were effectively making an interactive movie with gaming features.

The mistake they made was to treat it like a game and not a movie. 

[ScotGaymer]

Come on guys. Stop fighting.

[poundoffleshaa]

Art is a commodity (it is traded has value and is scarce) and some commodities are art.

[Hexley UK]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Come on guys. Stop fighting.

This!

[leondes1]

Luc0s wrote...

 Because this article has opened my eyes: http://www.pcgamer.c...-writers-think/ 


I've read that article 3 times and I've read really carefully what each developer had to say. Now I have to say that I agree with them, especially this part:

"But things like “cutscenes” and “endings” are completely authored by the developers, and the developers altering the authored content of a game after the fact has nothing to do with the systemic player-developer collaboration described above. "

I want to clarify, that I still absolutely HATE the ending of Mass Effect 3, but only now do I realize how silly it is that we demand that BioWare changes it. That does not mean that I think BioWare shouldn't change it. I think BioWare should make up their own mind and then THEY should decide what to do with the endings, NOT US.

So if BioWare wishes to change the endings for us, then I fully support them.
If BioWare doesn't want to change the endings but instead they choose to expand the current endings, I fully support them.
If BioWare decides to do nothing, I'll be hugely dissapoined, but I'll still fully support them.
They are within their right to do whatever they want with the narrative in their games and we players have no say over that.


If we players demanded a change within the gameplay, then I'd fully support that, because that is part of the interactive  relationship between player and developer. The developer creates an interactive product, we as the players interact with it and the result of that interactive relationship is gameplay. 


But is it fair and/or realistic for players to demand a new ending, especially when the ending is a non-interactive part of the game, a cut-scene that is part of the narrative, the story? Are we players within our right to demand changes in that?

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?


And before you come with the argument that games aren't the same as movies, I advice you to read my entire post again, until you understand that demanding a different ending in a game is the same as demanding a different ending for a movie. Yes, games are different, but I already explained why an ending or any cutscene within a game is not part of the interactive experience, it's not part of the interactive relationship between the player and developer. A cutscene is an artistic expression and in my opinion, art should not be changed because the viewer demands it. Art should only be changed if the artist decides that it should be changed.

I'll just respectfully
disagree. It's different when your art is interactive such as gaming. Also, the
very nature of DLC that add-ons on and changes parts of games to me just
suggests that games are a very malleable form of art. That's just how I see it. 



When you do a commission with an artist, there are
plenty of artists that I know personally who show you their work based on what
you told them you would like. There are of course thoughts that won't and you
must accept what they give you. If you tell them you don't like it and you’re
paying, many will be willing to correct it to how you want it. Money is an
important part of the discussion and should not be ignored. Now, I feel
differently when say, an artist creates a piece with no money involved and then
someone comes up to them demanding changes. This is totally different. The situation
matters as well, at least to me.



People paid for this game based on certain things
that were expected, the "art" of this game delivered something
different in the end then what was discusses by the developers based on many of
their own quotes. So as people paid for it, they have a right to demand the
certain product that was promised or at the very least, hinted upon over and
over.



Just my take on it.

Edited for spelling, suck at it.:happy:

Modifié par leondes1, 24 mars 2012 - 12:29 .

[Johcande XX]

I can criticize anything I want, regardless of "is it art". It really is a fairly simple concept:

If you make a product for a consumer, your intent is to make money. Consumers can and will voice complaints of said product, they do so all the time. If complaints are loud enough and frequent enough, then developers start losing money.

Making money = good
Losing money = bad

Criticizing Bioware to change a product is a valid complaint, one that is held by a vocal majority of their paying fanbase, through the magic of the internet the fanbase can rally their complaints together; and with the pressure of losing money/fanbase Bioware is forced into a position of changing their "art".

[RDSFirebane]

Well then I have to ask Luc0s do you think we should just drop the request/demand and the majority of the 50k unhappy people just go to another company? is that in some way better for bio-ware? Thats actual an interesting perspective sir I'll have to ask my business professor what he thinks of this idea.

Note : no hate intended realized wording makes that sound iffy.

[xxskyshadowxx]

Madecologist wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

If they (the artist) decide that they want to change their art, they are free to do so. But we have no right to demand a change within art. To demand that an artist changes his art is silly to say the least. We may voice our displeasure. We may decide not to buy future products of the artist. We may even suggest the artist to change his art. but we cannot DEMAND the artist to change his art.

This, people need to understand the distinction.

Words spoken from the keyboards of folks who have never created art on commission....*glances over at her multiple drafts*

If it's truly art, then we pay for it after we decide if we like it. But it's not...it contains some art, but ultimately it's a mass produced product being sold to consumers....and based on less that honest claims.

And....erm...a good chunk of that ending was pretty much ripped from Deus Ex (with some sprinklings of Gall Force). That's not art....that's plagarism.

[yoshibb]

babachewie wrote...

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.

Not once its done and its been paid for. Trust me. I'm an illustrator 

And trust me, I'm an artist. If someone asks for a commission and I give them something else, they have every right to demand I do what they paid for. 

[Grasich]

*sigh*

We are customers.

ME3 is a faulty product.

We are asking, in most cases politely, that it be fixed. In just about any other setting with any other product, people would have simply returned the product and vowed off the company. We are, instead, giving BioWare a chance to earn our trust back. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Sashimi_taco]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Sashimi_taco wrote...

I don't remember OP ever holding the line in the first place.

That's what I said.

It's been you and me, Unit. You and me since the begining. 

[ZodiEmish]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Dridengx wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

LOL, you really don't understand consumer rights, do you?

At all.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm

Hate to interupt your laughing but how is that FTC report on Bioware going? Still think your consumer rights were violated? yeah....

Derp, I was linking the OP about consumer rights, not making a comment on that.

Stop projecting.

Projecting is all he can do. Look at his posting history. it is sly attacks, and insults against people, but never any real discussion. Kind of sad too.

[Tazzmission]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Madecologist wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

If they (the artist) decide that they want to change their art, they are free to do so. But we have no right to demand a change within art. To demand that an artist changes his art is silly to say the least. We may voice our displeasure. We may decide not to buy future products of the artist. We may even suggest the artist to change his art. but we cannot DEMAND the artist to change his art.

This, people need to understand the distinction.

Except, we are allowed to demand one.

It's in the Constitution and many other countries' founding documents.

the constituion also says people  have freedom of speech so should the kkk say what they say even though you know its wrong?


just because they have such a right dosent make it ok still

Modifié par Tazzmission, 24 mars 2012 - 12:27 .

[Hexley UK]

Grasich wrote...

*sigh*

We are customers.

ME3 is a faulty product.

We are asking, in most cases politely, that it be fixed. In just about any other setting with any other product, people would have simply returned the product and vowed off the company. We are, instead, giving BioWare a chance to earn our trust back. There is nothing wrong with that.

Agree 100%

[MystaisPC]

I actually appreciate threads like this as it strengthens our resolve.

[Reptilian Rob]

Achaewa wrote...

Seems to me that the OP is choosing specific replies and twisting them into his own words to use against others.

Seriously has he even read any of the longer posts. Mass Effect is a videogame, a videogame is a product, a product is bought by the consumers, if the consumers do not like the product, they'll find one that's better and the developer wont get any money in the future. That's capitalism 101.

This.

Let this thread die, please. 

[Unit-Alpha]

Sashimi_taco wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Sashimi_taco wrote...

I don't remember OP ever holding the line in the first place.

That's what I said.

It's been you and me, Unit. You and me since the begining. 

We need a theme song.

[HenchxNarf]

yoshibb wrote...

babachewie wrote...

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.

Not once its done and its been paid for. Trust me. I'm an illustrator 

And trust me, I'm an artist. If someone asks for a commission and I give them something else, they have every right to demand I do what they paid for. 

While that is true. it does not apply in the case of a video game, and one who's story was never yours, but the people who created it. Not for you, but for their story.