I agree. And where was their artistic integrity when EA demanded that they include Multiplayer?
"Artistic Integrity" is just more PR BS, and people are actually falling for it.
.
Débuté par
Lanceare
, mars 24 2012 04:36
Retour en haut
#152
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:12
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 54 981 messages
jimbo32 wrote...
I agree. And where was their artistic integrity when EA demanded that they include Multiplayer?
"Artistic Integrity" is just more PR BS, and people are actually falling for it.
To be fair, they were trying to put multiplayer into Mass 1.
That was prior to the acquisition of EA.
#153
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:14
DarkWyccan
-
- Members
- 77 messages
I love CD Projekt Red, these guys really listen to customers and ensure that their product is the best it can be. And it shows, the Witcher 2 2.0 is amazing.
#154
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:15
Zkyire
-
- Members
- 3 449 messages
Heather Cline wrote...
Zkyire, No you pointed out all the shows with male protagonists. You never asked me anything about why I was ignoring shows with male protagonists. Two completely different subjects.
As for shows with male protagonists well let me put it this way. "Guy is hero, girl comes along, girl becomes love interest, guy gets girl." Same old same old. Why would I want to watch that over and over and over again?
I'd rather watch "Girl is hero, no guy or girl love interest, girl saves the day, girl goes on to save day over and over again." or "Girl is hero, guy comes along, guy becomes love interest, love blossoms, love eventually is not feasible so they break up but remain friends, guy leaves, girl goes on with life doing heroic stuff." or "Girl is hero, another girl comes along, new girl becomes love interest, love blossoms, girl hero and new girl continue to love one another while girl hero continues to save the day."
Those are things I'm interested these days. Male protagonists have been the center of television, video games, and books for so long it's gotten tiring for me and boring. Not to say that there aren't many great shows out there with male protagonists but i'm tired of seeing them all the time.
that's all.
You're listing different plotlines. Their gender is not important to the story. Exchange "girl" with "guy" and it's the exact same show.
#155
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:17
mcordonc
-
- Members
- 77 messages
THANK you OP. God.... I'm getting sick of the artistic integrity argument... also.
QFT. Seriously... freaking media nowadays.
Eivuwan wrote...
Artistic integrity is just an excuse for not correcting your mistakes.
QFT. Seriously... freaking media nowadays.
#156
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:18
Leafs43
-
- Members
- 2 526 messages
I siad it once and I;ll say it again...
Bioware's artistic defense has about as much integrity as a hooker going to church.
Bioware's artistic defense has about as much integrity as a hooker going to church.
#157
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:18
Jagri
-
- Members
- 853 messages
Rockpopple wrote...
@DJBare, I'm still waiting for an example of BioWare using artistic integrity as a defense for their mistakes. I think people need to re-read and think about Dr. Ray's statement, because that's not what I got from it at all.
I also think people need to have greater context as to what it means to be art. Calling something art doesn't mean calling something Rembrandt, or Da Vinci, or Shakespeare.
I think either video games are an artistic medium, or they're not. My point is that most gamers were fighting for the former to be recognized. Now it seems a lot of gamers around here are fighting for the latter to be the truth. Which saddens me. It just does, sorry.
http://www.cbsnews.c...ases-statement/
"At the same time, I also believe in and support the artistic choices made by the development team."
This wouldn't be the example your looking for Rock?
Modifié par Jagri, 24 mars 2012 - 07:22 .
#158
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:18
dbl219
-
- Members
- 96 messages
I absolutely adore CD Projekt Red. Now that's a class act.
It's also worth noting that another prominent writer who made changes to his well-known series is Stephen King with The Dark Tower. The most recent version of the first book, The Gunslinger, has substantially revised text. It was updated in 2003, whereas the original book was released in 1982.
It's also worth noting that another prominent writer who made changes to his well-known series is Stephen King with The Dark Tower. The most recent version of the first book, The Gunslinger, has substantially revised text. It was updated in 2003, whereas the original book was released in 1982.
#159
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:19
AllergevKev
-
- Members
- 215 messages
This.
I mean honestly, by these people's logic, the only version of any story that is actual the real version would be the first draft, and anything after is a fake.
Except that's not true. Ever heard of a director's cut of a movie?
I mean honestly, by these people's logic, the only version of any story that is actual the real version would be the first draft, and anything after is a fake.
Except that's not true. Ever heard of a director's cut of a movie?
#160
Guest_Sparatus_*
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:21
Guest_Sparatus_*
Guest_Sparatus_*
-
- Guests
dbl219 wrote...
I absolutely adore CD Projekt Red. Now that's a class act.
It's also worth noting that another prominent writer who made changes to his well-known series is Stephen King with The Dark Tower. The most recent version of the first book, The Gunslinger, has substantially revised text. It was updated in 2003, whereas the original book was released in 1982.
Ironically, the Dark Tower also has an incredibly unsatisfying ending. But at least King acknowledged it was.
#161
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:25
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 54 981 messages
DarkWyccan wrote...
I love CD Projekt Red, these guys really listen to customers and ensure that their product is the best it can be. And it shows, the Witcher 2 2.0 is amazing.
I really do hope it sells incredibly well on 360 this April.
April 17th to be exact.
#162
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:25
nwj94
-
- Members
- 417 messages
Frankly the whole artist integrity argument was weak to start with.
If you wanted to you could argue for keeping the endings the way they were, but "artistic integrity" just makes it look like you follow BW mindlessly or simply can't find a real reason to keep the endings the way they are.
If you wanted to you could argue for keeping the endings the way they were, but "artistic integrity" just makes it look like you follow BW mindlessly or simply can't find a real reason to keep the endings the way they are.
#163
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:26
magikbbg
-
- Members
- 298 messages
Op - none of those are owned by overlord rEApers.
#164
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:28
Heather Cline
-
- Members
- 2 822 messages
zkyire that's your take on it but not mine. so we will agree to disagree. end of discussion. thank you for the debate though.
#165
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:40
DerberAuner
-
- Members
- 113 messages
@ Rockpopple
I do not think anyone here wants videogames not to be considered art, i think people dont want "artistic integrity" to be used as an excuse. I also do not recall ever seeing the artistic integrity argument being brought up by bioware itself, HOWEVER, i have read it in more than a few online comments on the situation.
Alright, now that thats taking care of heres my take on "artistic integrity":
A piece of art can be altered in general by the author him/herself or themselves without artists losing their integrity. Whether or not you change a piece of art depends on the requirements and taste of your customer (yes, artists have customers too, take the artists that made all those oilpaintings, they made them FOR certain people).
Someone else altering the "artifact" generally means that its no longer a piece of art by one author, but not neccessarily means its no longer a piece of art at all. (i.e. assuming Bioware actually chooses to change the ending in accordance with fan suggestions, i would consider the fans to be co-authors of the ending).
Whether or not something is art lies withing the eyes of the beholder, there is no definition, that applies to everyone. Or, at the very least, said definition is flexible (otherwise movies could not be art, since obviously movies couldnt have been included in the definition of art 300 years ago).
As such i find the notion ridiculous, not to change something simply because it is "art".
It seems to me, that defenders of the ending are using this argument to stall for time and come up with a REAL argument, i. e. they wait until the retake movement makes a mistake. Or until the whole thing has just "blown over".
That being said, i generally dislike the idea of changing something that has already been sold to as many people as mass effect 3. It usually means that you made a mistake in releasing your product at the time you did and tarnishes your reputation.
However, admitting your mistakes is generally the better option, assuming you care about your reputation.
Which brings this whole thing to the point i saw earlier in this forum and would like to make as well:
The question that will define whether or not we will get another
(hopefully better) ending, some sort of closure ending, or nothing
whatsoever is:
Does bioware care enough (fiscally and reputationwise) to change the ending to the liking of their fanbase( i AM assuming here, that the loyal fanbase basically IS the retake mass effect movement)?
I, for one, hope they do.
I do not think anyone here wants videogames not to be considered art, i think people dont want "artistic integrity" to be used as an excuse. I also do not recall ever seeing the artistic integrity argument being brought up by bioware itself, HOWEVER, i have read it in more than a few online comments on the situation.
Alright, now that thats taking care of heres my take on "artistic integrity":
A piece of art can be altered in general by the author him/herself or themselves without artists losing their integrity. Whether or not you change a piece of art depends on the requirements and taste of your customer (yes, artists have customers too, take the artists that made all those oilpaintings, they made them FOR certain people).
Someone else altering the "artifact" generally means that its no longer a piece of art by one author, but not neccessarily means its no longer a piece of art at all. (i.e. assuming Bioware actually chooses to change the ending in accordance with fan suggestions, i would consider the fans to be co-authors of the ending).
Whether or not something is art lies withing the eyes of the beholder, there is no definition, that applies to everyone. Or, at the very least, said definition is flexible (otherwise movies could not be art, since obviously movies couldnt have been included in the definition of art 300 years ago).
As such i find the notion ridiculous, not to change something simply because it is "art".
It seems to me, that defenders of the ending are using this argument to stall for time and come up with a REAL argument, i. e. they wait until the retake movement makes a mistake. Or until the whole thing has just "blown over".
That being said, i generally dislike the idea of changing something that has already been sold to as many people as mass effect 3. It usually means that you made a mistake in releasing your product at the time you did and tarnishes your reputation.
However, admitting your mistakes is generally the better option, assuming you care about your reputation.
Which brings this whole thing to the point i saw earlier in this forum and would like to make as well:
The question that will define whether or not we will get another
(hopefully better) ending, some sort of closure ending, or nothing
whatsoever is:
Does bioware care enough (fiscally and reputationwise) to change the ending to the liking of their fanbase( i AM assuming here, that the loyal fanbase basically IS the retake mass effect movement)?
I, for one, hope they do.
#167
Guest_Sparatus_*
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:46
Guest_Sparatus_*
Guest_Sparatus_*
-
- Guests
magikbbg wrote...
Op - none of those are owned by overlord rEApers.
I doubt EA had anything to do with the endings. What I think happened, and what seems to be the case, is that Walters and Hudson wrote the ending without any input from the other writers, and refused to let it be edited. They wanted an ending full of ambiguity and speculation (for whatever reason) and let it happen.
The fans did not like it.
#168
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:50
DashRunner92
-
- Members
- 616 messages
There are a long long list of movies that have changed their endings. There are reasons why they do test-screenings! For example, the credits in Wall-E didn't have the epilogue, so test audiences assumed everyone died at the end. After complaints, they added the epilogue to show that they survive.
#169
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:57
TSgt_ShaneV
-
- Members
- 74 messages
OchreJelly wrote...
Slight tangent but related...
I think BioWare could learn a lot from CCP (Eve Online) and their fan oriented events, contests, interactions, blogs, etc. And CDProjekt as already mentioned.
This doesn't mean opening the floodgates to all the terrible fan ideas, but it does mean being more accessible and open to fans.
New developer studios seem to get that fan feedback can be hugely beneficial (during development or retroactively afterwards.) Older ones appear to have a hard time adapting to true fan interaction and response.
Now, BioWare as a whole has long been open to fan ideas and feedback, stretching back into their early days... but they are of the 'distant' type.
Don't forget CCP went thru a rough patch a while ago. Fans got upset, subs dipped and CCP came out and apologized and corrected their error. The only reason that worked/works is because Eve is subscription based and fan backlash is noticed right away and subs start to drop. If you don't keep your fans happy you literally can't pay your bills the next month. Your whole revenue model is based on monthly subs.
CDPR I think is the best example, what they do for their fans/customers is truly outstanding. I even brought both the Witcher and Witcher 2 and haven't played them yet. But I feel good supporting a Developer that truly makes games for the fans.
#170
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:58
InfiniteDemise
-
- Members
- 152 messages
Sparatus wrote...
magikbbg wrote...
Op - none of those are owned by overlord rEApers.
I doubt EA had anything to do with the endings. What I think happened, and what seems to be the case, is that Walters and Hudson wrote the ending without any input from the other writers, and refused to let it be edited. They wanted an ending full of ambiguity and speculation (for whatever reason) and let it happen.
The fans did not like it.
True. I know it's exceptionally popular to fervently believe that any screwups by Bioware can be laid at EA's feet, but Bioware crapped their britches here all on their lonesome.
#171
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:59
zarnk567
-
- Members
- 1 847 messages
Metal Gear Solid 4
- The orginal ending Hideo Kojima had wrote was to have Solid Snake and Otacon executed as traitors by the United States for their "War Crimes" in Metal Gear Solid 2. But Hideo Kojima changed it after his writing staff and Konami told him it was too depressing for an already depressing story. He then rewrote the ending to the current ending MGS4 has now. This is also why the ending song does not quite fit with the current ending of the game, since it was chosen by Kojima for the original ending he had written.
- The orginal ending Hideo Kojima had wrote was to have Solid Snake and Otacon executed as traitors by the United States for their "War Crimes" in Metal Gear Solid 2. But Hideo Kojima changed it after his writing staff and Konami told him it was too depressing for an already depressing story. He then rewrote the ending to the current ending MGS4 has now. This is also why the ending song does not quite fit with the current ending of the game, since it was chosen by Kojima for the original ending he had written.
Modifié par zarnk567, 24 mars 2012 - 08:00 .
#172
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 07:59
Lanceare
-
- Members
- 84 messages
syroz wrote...
CDprojekt is the new bioware, they really rocks. If only they could do some SF
They are working on a new Sci-Fi IP alongside the Witcher series. I can't wait!
#173
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 08:02
Lanceare
-
- Members
- 84 messages
DaringMoosejaw wrote...
CD Projekt is a great company, but unfortunately I goddamned hate The Witcher. I really wish they'd go with some other IP.
They are also working on an original Sci-Fi IP.
#174
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 08:02
Dragoonlordz
-
- Members
- 9 920 messages
What other people do is their choice, what Bioware or anyone else does is theirs. Something you will need to learn to live with OP. Not everyone has to drink cool-aid because someone else did or jump of a bridge because the person in front had done so.
#175
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 08:03
Promchek
-
- Members
- 197 messages
Sparatus wrote...
magikbbg wrote...
Op - none of those are owned by overlord rEApers.
I doubt EA had anything to do with the endings. What I think happened, and what seems to be the case, is that Walters and Hudson wrote the ending without any input from the other writers, and refused to let it be edited. They wanted an ending full of ambiguity and speculation (for whatever reason) and let it happen.
The fans did not like it.
and you know what? I t would be ok, when all 3 games were about that stuff, but then they would probably sell something only one tenth of game copies, and couldn't be able to pay their bills.
