208 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Juromaro wrote...

Except Bioware didn't serve a hamburger without a meat patty, 99.9% of the game was okay the last 5 mins were bad according to some on the forums....that's not without a patty that's without maybe the pickles or the ketchup.

That's up to interpretation. See all the comments regarding 16 different endings, closure, etc. Regardless, your conclusion regarding us holding Bioware hostage is way off. The consumer doesn't have to be fair with his purchasing power any more than the company has to be fair with its product. If they wanted, they could sell Mass Effect 3 for $200. And if we wanted, we never have to buy another Bioware product again. It's not holding them hostage so much as consumerism.

[Il Divo]

InvincibleHero wrote...

I understand your point of not being entertained, but if they change it for you it may alienate more than they gain by making you happy. Plenty of people can be happy with it as is so why does it have to change? You feel your needs outweigh the creator and all other users to get your satisfaction.

And that's a call Bioware has to make, not you or me. Is over 60,000 fans enough to demonstrate the point that people are unhappy? Is it enough to cause problems for future sales? At the least, this does have implications for any dlc released. Bioware is clearly watching the situation closely and at this point, they are very well aware of the complaints regarding the ending. I take issue with ME3's ending the same way I would take issue with Lord of the Rings if Tolkien decided to drop a meteor on the entire cast in the last five minutes.

Ultimately, my needs do outweigh the artist, although in this case I should point out you are assuming more fans are content with the current ending than angry, which we really don't know. But remember, no one purchases entertainment for the artist. They do it on the understanding that the artist's vision might entertain them, similar to the impressionist painting example. Bioware can make what they want, or they can make what is likely to keep me interested in their products.  

I agree you can choose not to buy a product and that is the proper response as far as most products go. In this case it isn't something you can get 100 people to agree yep it's broken in a concrete and objective manner to say you deserve a remedy like bad ram that doesn't work. for a refund or new ones.

Well, for starters, I don't really believe in objectivity so a refund isn't really what I'm interested in. I don't see myself as "deserving" a new ending. I see myself as a consumer offering demand for a product, as I said before. In other words, I'm willing to pay for it, with the promise that I won't buy future Bioware products unless this is fixed. Alone, I'm not likely to cause change, but given current outrage and media press, at the least Bioware is aware that alot of people are angry.

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 mars 2012 - 01:21 .

[78stonewobble]

abaris wrote...
There's a fundamental difference between Lady Gaga (although I don't like any of her songs), every other artist there is or was on that planet and video game productions.

Artists do their thing. Videogames aren't the brainchild of a single mind or a group coming together to do art for arts sake. They are planned like a military campaign with accountants and producers calling the first shots. Only after the dosh is handed out and the deadlines are set, there's some artistic work, but that again doesn't follow the visions of the idividual creating the worlds and the stories. It follows the script, authorized by the lead writer, the design follows the canon, set at some stage again not by an individual but by a group of people following a plan.

And the result is a product with artistic elements, same as with any given magazine that also employs artists to do their thing to make the pictures and layouts look pretty.

Sooo kinda like professional soccer isn't a sport because it isn't individual and there's money in it?


Nah I'm more of the oppinion that pretty much any effort could be construed as art... It's just like with people that 99 percent of it / them ranges from mediocre to poor.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 26 mars 2012 - 01:24 .

[Whatever42]

From Webster:

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

From Collins:

"imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the imagination"

They all have similar definitions. Nothing about being collaborative. Nothing about not changing anything based on requests from the client.

The only people who debate about something being "art" are those people who do not enjoy the creation (I find some art "artless" myself - I usually attack it on the "skill" component) and want to elevate what they like over what they don't like. Usually, they feel that they are culturally superior to others and want "official" terminology to reflect that. In other words, its snobs trying to put other people down.

Video games are certainly art. Heck, I find Pac-Man art. Even bad video games are art. If my neighbours bad attempt at painting is still art then so are bad hollywood movies and bad video games.

[Daniel_N7]

Hello all. I haven't read the whole thread and I'd like to address the OP's statement directly.

First, I'm a firm believer that video games are an art form. When Roger Ebert, whom I deeply respect, said that video games can never be art, I wrote a long post about it. You can find it on my blog - link.

On a second note I really don't like to see the "art" issue being raised to support the notion that the ending of ME3 can't be changed. I respect that some people may think that it shouldn't be changed, which is a different thing altogether, but still I disagree.

The most important reason is simple: the ending is weak. If we were talking about masterpiece sci-fi writing, no matter how tragic/bad the ending might have been, it would be entirely defensable. But that is simply, in my view, not the case.

The second reason has to do with the fact that, although video games can be art, they are also popular culture. This entire "fan crysis" is proof that Mass Effect has become a pop culture phenomenon, similar to Star Wars, LOTR, etc... And you can be sure that the passionate fans of these and other successful series feel "entitled" to manifest their opinions on what happens to their beloved characters and fictional worlds.

That said, the creators, authors, are legitimately free to choose as they wish - to change the ending or not. But when a creation becomes a phenomenon, isn't this a two-way relationship? Mass Effect has generated an immense landscape of iconography, fan art, fan fiction, fan blogs, etc... It is a good thing, for everyone, and certainly for BioWare. It means they were successful. But it also means an added responsability. And what we have to ask ourselves here is: does the end of ME3 lives up to that?

And you know what? It's not our answer that really matters. But the answer of the authors at BioWare. Right now, we're all sitting here, waiting, to see what they think...

[saracen16]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

That's called feedback... constructive criticism. The artist makes the final decision as to set the pieces the way he wants it. You certainly did not commission Mass Effect 3, nor do you own the rights to change the story. You just own a copy of the game, the work of art. It is up to you to like it or hate it.

So we don't have the right to talk about it or ask for a change?

Bioware still makes the final call here; we're not holding the poor bastards hostage at gunpoint or anything.

But a lot of your cohorts are doing so as we speak. Holding them at gunpoint is ethically equivocal to emotionally blackmailing them: this "Retake Mass Effect" campaign of Child's Play has forced the latter to distance itself from the former due to the unethical nature of indirectly "bribing" BioWare to change the ending let alone holding children hostage. It's ironic that some of those who donated are even asking for their money back.

[sevach]

Bratinov wrote...

Popular franchises are not art, they are commercial diarrhea and will become anything in order to appeal to everyone.
Bioware products are losing their identity imho.

Bingo!!!

[Woodstock-TC]

..to quote our German Wilhelm Busch regarding the best critic"us":

Nicht, wer selbst ein Lautenschläger,
Sondern ein Gedichtsverleger
Ist der rechte Kritikus,
Nämlich, weil er zahlen muß.

in short: the best/right critic of an artwork is not an artist but the one who has to pay for it

Modifié par Woodstock-TC, 26 mars 2012 - 07:41 .

[d.nichols]

Video games might be art, that's not for me to judge. But they are not the same kind of art as paintings, sculptures or music. This metaphor doesn't work and I've explained why half a dozen times. If video games were like the goddamn Mona Lisa, there would be one super expensive copy and then everyone else could appreciate it, but never touch. Too bad they are the most "interactive" form of art if you want to call them that. Therefore the fans don't necessarily HAVE to have a say, but it certainly is a movement in that direction. Movies are changed based on fan reactions all the time, it's just generally pre-release.

"Art is never completed, only abandoned." - Leonardo Da Vinci.

That said, I don't think Bioware has to change the ending. The ending we got is what it is, unfortunately, it's just a ****ty one.